Originally Posted by tompe
But my point was that the articles reading_context_1 is of course not all possible ways to consume text. We can have reading_context_2 and my point was that this the author might have missed. But a lot of people here have missed that a context is necessary for this discussion and that just consuming text is not what the article was about.
Reading is reading is reading, regardless of the context. There is no "reading_context1". There is only "reading + context1", because it is still reading in a different context. If changing the context doesn't make it not reading, then the context isn't part of what makes it reading. The author makes a fatal mistake in assuming that how he prefers to read is an inherent part of reading. He likes the tactile sensation of paper books. That's fine, but it is a mistake to think that it isn't reading with out it.
To borrow from Dr. Seuss:
I could read them on a boat,
I could read them on a goat.
I could read them in the rain,
I could read them in the train.