Actually, my personal favorite is Poe. And you could probably read all of the stories I mentioned in the earlier comment in a day or two. But this is about your personal preference. A Connecticut Yankee is cultural satire and is kind of timeless. Sawyer and Finn are coming of age stories - quite good, though a bit dated. They are certainly more often included in American Lit classes.

Look at that - you can read all three (and Poe and others) right here.

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
Gotcha. So you wouldn't start with Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer or something higher profile? I've literally read none of them.


In reply to this comment by jonny:
I meant that even if you don't especially enjoy a classic novel, you haven't completely wasted your time - you're still probably better off for having read it. But yeah, enjoyment of a book - just like music, food, and art - is all about personal taste. I've read very little Russian literature, basically for fear of exactly the same reaction as yourself. (Oddly, though, I did enjoy A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, which is about as depressing and plodding as you can imagine.) If you're not fond of the Russians, there are some Americans you should probably avoid too - Faulkner, Steinbeck and some (not all!) of the other early 20th century writers probably first among them.

Gotcha. So you wouldn't start with Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer or something higher profile? I've literally read none of them.


In reply to this comment by jonny:
I meant that even if you don't especially enjoy a classic novel, you haven't completely wasted your time - you're still probably better off for having read it. But yeah, enjoyment of a book - just like music, food, and art - is all about personal taste. I've read very little Russian literature, basically for fear of exactly the same reaction as yourself. (Oddly, though, I did enjoy A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, which is about as depressing and plodding as you can imagine.) If you're not fond of the Russians, there are some Americans you should probably avoid too - Faulkner, Steinbeck and some (not all!) of the other early 20th century writers probably first among them.

Krafts fine products might influence me a little. But I am not on the payroll....Yet
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^BoneRemake:

Oh wait I gotcha ~!

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Mike-Daisey-on-Collaborating-with-Corporations
Lets wait for someone to isupe it shall we instead of the other thing.
it is sifted already netrunner, if you want to bring it to the peoples eyes then quality or promote it. Your no more special than anyone else, the rules apply to your videos just as Everyone else.

PEANUT BUTTER !


What are you, a corporation or something?

>> ^BoneRemake:

Oh wait I gotcha ~!

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Mike-Daisey-on-Collaborating-with-Corporations
Lets wait for someone to isupe it shall we instead of the other thing.
it is sifted already netrunner, if you want to bring it to the peoples eyes then quality or promote it. Your no more special than anyone else, the rules apply to your videos just as Everyone else.

PEANUT BUTTER !


What are you, a corporation or something?

Oh wait I gotcha ~!


*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Mike-Daisey-on-Collaborating-with-Corporations

Lets wait for someone to isupe it shall we instead of the other thing.

it is sifted already netrunner, if you want to bring it to the peoples eyes then quality or promote it. Your no more special than anyone else, the rules apply to your videos just as Everyone else.


PEANUT BUTTER !

Oof. I'm sick of coming to videos expecting to learn something and it's just a stupid CGI wank "gotcha" video.

I'd rather be rickrolled.

"But in this argument, I actually agree with Paul, and I think Matthews is playing a cheap gotcha-game with him."
"Ultimately Matthews is just trying to get RP to slip him a negative soundbite that they can turn around and splash non-contextually throughout the media."

Matthews is not playing a gotcha game here. He is asking direct questions or posing clear hypotheticals to Paul. The reason they seem like gotcha questions is because truthful answers to those questions would polarize Paul's voting base. And would be totally abhorrent to voters like me who are otherwise receptive to Paul's message.

"So you're saying the US government is going to specially treat certain groups poorly because Ron Paul would be in office?"

No, I'm saying that Ron Paul would push to abolish laws like the 64 Civil Rights Act if he were president or begin to lean government in that direction. Am I wrong here?

"Again, we're talking about government legislation. Silly laws get passed all the time. In this case it has surely hurt Arizona already, and will continue to hurt them. I'd say 'let them be dumb', but in this case we don't really need to, as I doubt their law is constitutional."

You're willing to let Arizona stew in their mess because it doesn't affect you. If you were a latino in Arizona, you'd feel differently.

>> ^EMPIRE:

The man is a creationist, in a developed nation in the 21st century, with full access to information, AND he's a doctor, so he should know a thing or two about basic biology.
That alone would be enough for me.


Me too.

But in this argument, I actually agree with Paul, and I think Matthews is playing a cheap gotcha-game with him.

Lets ask, what is this law really good for?

So, storeowners etc cannot discriminate, well, at least not officially, they cannot put up signs with "no blacks" and things like that, and they cant deny people entrance based on skincolor, well, thats all well and good, but they could still stand in they own store and shout "I hate black people" as much as they want.. or they could give looks, poor service, etc all sorts of "expression of freedoms". Most stores dont do these things.. why? well, because its not socially acceptable anymore, right? For all I know, there might still be some who do, and that would suck, but its not like you could outlaw these things. What needs to change, and I still do think change is needed, is what we deem to be socially acceptable and so forth. Racism, unfortunately, wont dissappear over night, its a long, hard battle, and just like the battle against drugs, making laws against it is probably not an effective weapon.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker

Gotcha this, gotcha that. Reporting corruption is gotcha journalism, haven't you heard?

Don't alter my reality so fast! Waaaah.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Gotcha :. Ha just edited my comment


In reply to this comment by luxury_pie:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://eric3579.videosift.com" title="member since January 22nd, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#0af71a">eric3579 It's blocked because of the music, I guessed. There is music right?

Gotcha . Ha just edited my comment


In reply to this comment by luxury_pie:
@eric3579 It's blocked because of the music, I guessed. There is music right?

Oh okay, you were just being a drunk/high/sober asshat, gotcha.

No worries.

Yeah, I considered that you may have been trolling. I expected I'd attract plenty of it when I wrote the thread.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Gotcha! All in good fun ;

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
>> ^eric3579:

I don't like! blah blah blah! whine whine whine!


I'm not whining. I just thought some people might like to understand the meaning of the word. At the same time, I knew lots of people wouldn't give a shit.

If you don't give a shit, why join the conversation?

Gotcha! All in good fun

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
>> ^eric3579:

I don't like! blah blah blah! whine whine whine!


I'm not whining. I just thought some people might like to understand the meaning of the word. At the same time, I knew lots of people wouldn't give a shit.

If you don't give a shit, why join the conversation?

>> ^bmacs27:

>> ^Fletch:
She acted like someone using a Mac was some ironic "gotcha" moment? What are they supposed to use to communicate? Smoke signals? And I bet they wear clothes that originated from some large textile company. Or ate some food from a huge Agricorp for lunch. Or grabbed a cab burning evil Exxon gas. Are those Nikes on your feet?!

Right. That's sort of the point. Want to stick it to corporations? Don't do those things.
If instead you'd rather just benefit from all the fruits of corporations, but don't want the corporations, well, what does that say?

Who said anything about not wanting corporations? I think the desire is for them to quit sending jobs oversees, be less evil, that kind of thing. Change their ways, pay their fair share in taxes, etc. Anyway, corporations are people now. So says 5 of our esteemed SCJs, so it must be true. Sticking it to corporations would be the same as sticking it to people. And I'm a people person, so that's no good.

I'm all for boycotts and applying economic pressure to corps for bad behavior, but this was a single person in the middle of a very uncoordinated demonstration being challenged by some nitwit reporter who thought she had some juicy angle on the whole thing, all because said person was using a Mac to check her email. Give me a fucking (oops!) break.

So, you tell ME "what does that say?" You pulled your premise ("If instead you'd rather just benefit from all the fruits of corporations, but don't want the corporations") out of your own ass and applied it to me, as if you have any clue what I'm about. I bet it sounded logical, and maybe even clever in your head when it... formed... in there somehow. But, now, as I read it over and over and over, I'm having difficulty understanding what sort of mental miasma, ideological dissonance, or logical labefactation could actually allow you to think of the question, type the question, and then send the question into the ether, all without realizing what a STOOPID FUCKING QUESTION it is!

So... YOU tell ME what the fuck it says!

TTFN!