Quote:
Originally Posted by ZodWallop
Please put the knife down and follow my comments in context (you know, like a real reader  ): |
No bladed edges here. Apparently and lamentably, you've read into my response to your "real readers" comments rancor where there is none. Additionally, my reply actually does follow your comments in context.
I concur with multiple others' responses to your comments in this thread, so rather than piling on, I'll merely add the following observation to the conversation: the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project has quantitatively classified readers of different types, e.g., in "
The rise of e-reading" (April 4, 2012) and in "
Reading Habits in Different Communities" (December 20, 2012). Whether one takes issue with Pews' study or not, using terms like theirs, rather than "real reader", to describe various types of readers is more
reliable and valid (to use statistical terms), and is more
objective (i.e., avoids even the appearance of being judgmental), and it puts discussants "on the same page", so to speak.