> How patronising. You smug turd.
>> How patronising. You smug turd.
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>a 2nd language to them - but (IMHO) there is still an unwritten desire that
>people at least make a minimum effort out of courtesy to their reader.
I'd qualify that by excluding Americans.
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
Book readership slips in U.S.
By Monique E. Stuart
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published July 9, 2004
Fewer Americans are reading books, with rates declining the fastest
among younger and Hispanic readers, a report says.
"The lowest absolute reading rate is [among] Hispanics, even when
taking into account books in other languages, which we did," said Dana
Gioia, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), which
conducted the survey. "But the largest absolute decline is among
younger readers."
The NEA reports that 47 percent of American adults read
literature, defined as novels and nonfictional books, short stories,
poems and plays. The most widely read among the literature group are
novels and short stories, which are read by 45 percent of Americans,
or 93 million people.
The study says literary reading overall has declined 10 percent
from 1982 to 2002. This represents a loss of 20 million readers.
Mr. Gioia said significant social and cultural implications are at
stake.
"If competing in the 21st century, some imaginative development
has been, and only can be, expressed through reading and writing. A
decline in reading will diminish our productivity and innovation.
Compared to nonreaders, readers attend sporting events 3-to-1. Readers
also volunteer more and do more charity. They go to museums and plays
more," he said.
He said computers, pocket video games and DVD players have
contributed significantly to the decline in reading.
"Active and engaged reading produces active and engaged citizens.
With all of the new inventions -- DVDs, VCRs, IPods, computers, the
Internet, and video games -- people still watch the same amount of TV
as they did 20 years ago, [and] that time is being taken away from two
major activities: reading and civic engagement," Mr. Gioia said.
Book sales decreased about 1 percent from 2002 to 2003. The
biggest decline was in adult literature, but sales of the popular
Harry Potter series are estimated to have offset this number.
"The categories [juvenile and adult] move independently," said
Jeff Abraham, executive director of the Book Industry Study Group,
which researches and monitors issues affecting book sales. "There is
no doubt that things like Harry Potter dampened the effects of the
overall decrease, but all in all, the bottom line has remained
relatively flat."
However, Mr. Abraham warned that book sales don't give an accurate
measurement of readership.
"An increase in net dollar sales doesn't necessarily indicate an
increase in the number of actual units sold. Net dollar sales are
determined by changes in prices. When books cost more, there are
higher net dollar sales, but that doesn't mean that there are higher
amounts of books being sold," he said.
Book sales are expected to dip again this year but rise from 2005
to 2007.
"There are more college grads than ever, but fewer are reading,"
Mr. Gioia said. "We need to develop ideas to develop adult readers --
the problem isn't just kids. Oprah's book club is good, but we need
hundreds more like it."
The Census Bureau conducted the study, "Reading at Risk: A Survey
of Literary Reading in America," at the NEA's request.
"The NEA doesn't have all of the answers," Mr. Gioia said. "This
is going to require national efforts, with many groups, institutions
and organizations working in many ways to reverse this, but we will
make this information available for the public. We want to create a
national debate about the importance of this. There are different
solutions for different groups. Everyone falls into a group, no matter
how you define that group. ... We consider this a national crisis."
Cockpit Colin - 20 Jul 2005 04:25 GMT
> I'd qualify that by excluding Americans.
>
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
> solutions for different groups. Everyone falls into a group, no matter
> how you define that group. ... We consider this a national crisis."
So in essence what we're saying here is that both reading AND writing
standards are declining? Thank goodness I grew up in a time where schools
used to focus on teaching the basics - I can see serious consequences of
what was written in The Washington Times article.
Personally, I'm just going to delete some of these poorly written diatribes
in future. I certainly don't mind "pidgeon english" from those who have
obviously learnt English as a 2nd language, but if authors aren't prepared
to put just a little effort into making a post readable, then from now on
I'm not prepared to spend 3 times as long plowing through it all trying to
make sense of it.
Frank ess - 20 Jul 2005 04:45 GMT
>> I'd qualify that by excluding Americans.
<snip>
Qualify what? That seems to have slipped off the screen.
> So in essence what we're saying here is that both reading AND
> writing
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Personally, I'm just going to delete some of these poorly written
> diatribes in future. I certainly don't mind "pidgeon english"
Do you mean "pidgin"? That's what I thought:
"A simplified form of speech that is usually a mixture of two or more
languages, has a rudimentary grammar and vocabulary, is used for
communication between groups speaking different languages, and is not
spoken as a first or native language. Also called contact language."
"No entry found for pidgeon."
"Pigeon":
1.. Any of various birds of the widely distributed family
Columbidae, characteristically having plump bodies, small heads, and
short legs, especially the rock dove or any of its domesticated
varieties.
2.. Slang. One who is easily swindled; a dupe.
> from
> those who have obviously learnt English as a 2nd language, but if
> authors aren't prepared to put just a little effort into making a
> post readable, then from now on I'm not prepared to spend 3
Do you mean "three"? That's what I thought.
> times as
> long plowing through it all trying to make sense of it.
Seems reasonable, if by "times as long" you mean to say "as much
time". I think there is some difficulty to be met in multiplying
"longs".
Not necessarily in order of appearance:
Too often there is no sense in it. That should be obvious very early
in the row you are plowing.
I agree that sloppy posts, formally and contently speaking, show a
severe lack of respect for one's readers. More important, they show a
lack of respect for oneself. When I was in the US military, I heard
this saying: "A man who doesn't shine the heels of his boots doesn't
wipe his a.s." Relatively inexperienced, I was revolted, and had less
than a clue as to what it meant. Means.
Now I think I understand it a bit better. And everywhere I look, the
percentage of unshined boot-heels in the population seems to be
increasing.
Yours for unsloppying posts,

Signature
Frank S
"Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten-up a chump."
—William Claude Dukenfeld
Cockpit Colin - 20 Jul 2005 05:03 GMT
> >> I'd qualify that by excluding Americans.
>
> <snip>
>
> Qualify what? That seems to have slipped off the screen.
The "I'd qualify that etc" wasn't posted by myself.
as fur da rest, iz giv up and um nowz gunna do wot i shudda duna long tyme
ago - get bak 2 za reel wrld.
ova n out
> > So in essence what we're saying here is that both reading AND
> > writing
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
>
> Yours for unsloppying posts,