Has Anyone...
seen this? I'm not sure if it has already been covered in one of the class blogs, but I had to post it. Look at the entry on the word "blog."
Labels: Blogging
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Sunday, October 29, 2006
It's Alive!
This blew my mind. Though I've thought (and written) about the communal nature of blogs and delighted in the collaborative efforts of MetaFilter and Wikipedia, I've never pushed it one step further into what Teilhard calls a "vast thinking membrane...containing our collective thoughts and experiences." Since infancy, we're taught to work in groups, to share, and to listen. But to me, these things always seemed confined to classrooms and homes and office spaces (in other words, confined to person-to-person contact), but in thinking of the internet as a membrane wherein our collective thoughts and experiences lie brings a new dimension to the concept of "teamwork."
And when we join together, when we collaboratively blog and create sites like MetaFilter, are we building something that will soon take its own course, have its own "life" no longer under our control? It certainly seems that way. Let's look at MetaFilter. It was created by "bloggers" but now seems to sort of exist on its own, morphing as the users and their ideas multiply. Though I love The X-Files and have a geeky penchant for the Sci-Fi channel and horror movies, I've always found the idea of life in computers, within the internet or on blogging sites impossible.
Now, I'm not so sure about that.
Sheesh! I still have boingboing-ing to do.
And when we join together, when we collaboratively blog and create sites like MetaFilter, are we building something that will soon take its own course, have its own "life" no longer under our control? It certainly seems that way. Let's look at MetaFilter. It was created by "bloggers" but now seems to sort of exist on its own, morphing as the users and their ideas multiply. Though I love The X-Files and have a geeky penchant for the Sci-Fi channel and horror movies, I've always found the idea of life in computers, within the internet or on blogging sites impossible.
Now, I'm not so sure about that.
Sheesh! I still have boingboing-ing to do.
Labels: Academics, Blogging, MetaFilter
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Briefly: Metafilter
Metafilter, where have you been all of my life?
Seriously. This site is fabulous. As if I need another obsession.
Metafilter seems different from Wikipedia, not so much in structure (I think that's rather similar, though scaled down) but rather, in concept. Wikipedia, even with its weighty pop culture entries, is geared to be a free encyclopedia, which means it aims to be objective and informative. Metafilter allows for fun and subjectivity. The comment threads are loaded with opinions, compliments, further information and more links, witty remarks, not-so witty remarks, and hilarious musings. It's good stuff.
Perhaps it works better and is (for me) more enjoyable to study because of what it is.
Seriously. This site is fabulous. As if I need another obsession.
Metafilter seems different from Wikipedia, not so much in structure (I think that's rather similar, though scaled down) but rather, in concept. Wikipedia, even with its weighty pop culture entries, is geared to be a free encyclopedia, which means it aims to be objective and informative. Metafilter allows for fun and subjectivity. The comment threads are loaded with opinions, compliments, further information and more links, witty remarks, not-so witty remarks, and hilarious musings. It's good stuff.
Perhaps it works better and is (for me) more enjoyable to study because of what it is.
Labels: MetaFilter
Monday, October 23, 2006
Wiki: It Is What It Is
I'm running the risk of oversimplifying my opinion of Wikipedia (and perhaps Wikipedia itself), but...it is what it is. Whether or not it was founded on (too) idealistic principles, whether or not the founders knew it was going to explode as it did, whether or not the system of addition and deletion is sort of arbitrary, and whether or not you like the site or use it, it is what it is: a free, experimental, communal website that attempts to distribute information of encyclopedia caliber (with a dash of popular culture).
I agree with Eric S. Raymond's analogy of the bazaar, especially: "With no central authority, order sort of emerges bottom-up from the actions and desires of the participants." That, I think, pretty accurately describes Wiki's unique structure.
And I'm OK with that. And that doesn't mean my attitude toward Wiki is "take it with a grain of salt," even though I think you must. I appreciate Wikipedia for what it is, for the structure of it, and for how it grew. I would never rely on it for a research paper, and I would always double-check the information it provides, but it's a useful site if you need information quickly, if you want to jog your memory, or if you want to explore some aspect pop culture. Where else might I find all of this X-Files information on one page?
Perhaps the one down side is that some people, especially younger people, make take Wiki's information as 100% true, either because they don't understand how the site works or because they trust internet information too much. But then, we probably shouldn't trust any information too much.
I agree with Eric S. Raymond's analogy of the bazaar, especially: "With no central authority, order sort of emerges bottom-up from the actions and desires of the participants." That, I think, pretty accurately describes Wiki's unique structure.
And I'm OK with that. And that doesn't mean my attitude toward Wiki is "take it with a grain of salt," even though I think you must. I appreciate Wikipedia for what it is, for the structure of it, and for how it grew. I would never rely on it for a research paper, and I would always double-check the information it provides, but it's a useful site if you need information quickly, if you want to jog your memory, or if you want to explore some aspect pop culture. Where else might I find all of this X-Files information on one page?
Perhaps the one down side is that some people, especially younger people, make take Wiki's information as 100% true, either because they don't understand how the site works or because they trust internet information too much. But then, we probably shouldn't trust any information too much.
A Few Disjointed Thoughts
1. I've often thought of my life as an endless series of awkward moments. I've thought about this so often, in fact, that I once considered starting a blog that only included the awkward moments of my life: nervous elevator conversations, dropping things at crucial moments, falling down various sets of stairs, the bizarre go-ahead-no-you-go-no-really-ok-ok dance in which I always seem to get stuck, excitedly imitating a great kill scene from a Friday the 13th film in a Board meeting and then realizing I went just a little too far. You know, things we can all relate to.
This only came to mind today because I remembered that I fell down the stage stairs at a CODS show this weekend. I tell you: awkward moments, one right after another.
2. Livejournal. I've had a Livejournal for three or four years now, and the more I learn in this class, the more interested I am in how Livejournal works. It's sort of its own species. I mean, it is a blogging site, but it's also a web of forums (communities). And good icons are the much-desired art of the Livejournal world; some people enter icon contests and some people pay to have unlimited icons. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something about Livejournal is different from other blogging sites, even the similarly youthful Xanga. And I know people chock up Livejournal to a teen diary site, but it's pretty in-depth and some people are doing some really cool things with it.
3. Further evidence of my crotchety old lady status: I have a bad back.
This only came to mind today because I remembered that I fell down the stage stairs at a CODS show this weekend. I tell you: awkward moments, one right after another.
2. Livejournal. I've had a Livejournal for three or four years now, and the more I learn in this class, the more interested I am in how Livejournal works. It's sort of its own species. I mean, it is a blogging site, but it's also a web of forums (communities). And good icons are the much-desired art of the Livejournal world; some people enter icon contests and some people pay to have unlimited icons. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something about Livejournal is different from other blogging sites, even the similarly youthful Xanga. And I know people chock up Livejournal to a teen diary site, but it's pretty in-depth and some people are doing some really cool things with it.
3. Further evidence of my crotchety old lady status: I have a bad back.
Labels: Awkward Moments, Blogging, I'm An Old Lady
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Notes on Notes
In Notes From My Corner, Em wrote about the stunning unifying powers of the internet. We can connect with strangers as easily as we can connect with loved ones. We can surf chat rooms and websites for information and for connection. We can comment on one another's published thoughts. And we can do it all so quickly.
I started thinking about how the internet is paradoxically connective and isolating. Emailing, surfing for information, IM-ing, etc. are solitary acts. It's a bizarre concept: we can reach out to people with more ease and speed than ever, but actual human contact, one-on-one interaction with eye contact and touches and body language is becoming a bit more infrequent. We are holing up and sitting alone in order to branch out and connect. Strange.
Of course, I've been reading a lot of post-structuralist literary theory about paradoxes and breaking down binary opposites and de-centering structures and all that jazz, so perhaps I'm over-thinking this...
I started thinking about how the internet is paradoxically connective and isolating. Emailing, surfing for information, IM-ing, etc. are solitary acts. It's a bizarre concept: we can reach out to people with more ease and speed than ever, but actual human contact, one-on-one interaction with eye contact and touches and body language is becoming a bit more infrequent. We are holing up and sitting alone in order to branch out and connect. Strange.
Of course, I've been reading a lot of post-structuralist literary theory about paradoxes and breaking down binary opposites and de-centering structures and all that jazz, so perhaps I'm over-thinking this...
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Wiki Crit
No better way to spend a sunny October Saturday than reading Jason Scott's criticism of Wikipedia (she says, with a hint of sarcasm). Really, though, it's an entertaining article. However, I -- like Wiki's blogger -- found most of the main arguments within the article to be lacking sufficient evidence.
1. I never considered Wikipedia to be resting on a "utopian framework" (as Jason does) because I always understood it as a sort of collaborative experiment that expanded beyond expectations. Wiki blogger says something like this, and Jason defends himself by saying that Jimbo has repeatedly referred to Wikipedia in terms of "good and light," which reminded me of The New Yorker article that mentions Wikipedia working for a "greater good." I don't think that makes Wikipedia based on a utopian framework, but I can more clearly see Jason's point. Perhaps the site has been glorified a bit...too much?
2 & 3. Jason believes that the back-and-forth quality of Wikipedia opens it up to "supervandalism," which I think contributes to his third point about Wikipedia representing the first wave of the information war. I would not pin that on Wikipedia. I think we've been heading toward that for a long, long time as our technologies have advanced and the speed with which we attain information has quickened. Wikipedia may be a part of the information war, but I don't think it represents the first wave. And I guess, to be perhaps overly optimistic, an information war may bring about more discernible readers.
4. He is right on this. Deletion by some random guy (or woman) is a bit disheartening and befuddling, but, you know, that's how it works.
5 & 6. Jason, even in his comments on Wiki's blog, did not solidify his claims that insiders of Wikipedia are working to ruin it. Totally possible, sure. But not convincing without proof. I'm also not convinced of any sort of coming overthrow of Jimbo, nor do I particularly care.
The delightful New York Times article that Colin posted centered on #4, the process of deletion from or addition to Wikipedia. It seems that the definition of "notable" is ambiguous (even considering the guidelines), but I think it has to be in order to maintain the open feel of the site.
I loved reading the entries and the debates about whether each entry should be added or deleted. It was like a pithy internet version of American Idol. They show off their stuff (Pooky, for instance), the people debate about its "notable" quality, and it either stays on or gets the ax. What fun!
1. I never considered Wikipedia to be resting on a "utopian framework" (as Jason does) because I always understood it as a sort of collaborative experiment that expanded beyond expectations. Wiki blogger says something like this, and Jason defends himself by saying that Jimbo has repeatedly referred to Wikipedia in terms of "good and light," which reminded me of The New Yorker article that mentions Wikipedia working for a "greater good." I don't think that makes Wikipedia based on a utopian framework, but I can more clearly see Jason's point. Perhaps the site has been glorified a bit...too much?
2 & 3. Jason believes that the back-and-forth quality of Wikipedia opens it up to "supervandalism," which I think contributes to his third point about Wikipedia representing the first wave of the information war. I would not pin that on Wikipedia. I think we've been heading toward that for a long, long time as our technologies have advanced and the speed with which we attain information has quickened. Wikipedia may be a part of the information war, but I don't think it represents the first wave. And I guess, to be perhaps overly optimistic, an information war may bring about more discernible readers.
4. He is right on this. Deletion by some random guy (or woman) is a bit disheartening and befuddling, but, you know, that's how it works.
5 & 6. Jason, even in his comments on Wiki's blog, did not solidify his claims that insiders of Wikipedia are working to ruin it. Totally possible, sure. But not convincing without proof. I'm also not convinced of any sort of coming overthrow of Jimbo, nor do I particularly care.
The delightful New York Times article that Colin posted centered on #4, the process of deletion from or addition to Wikipedia. It seems that the definition of "notable" is ambiguous (even considering the guidelines), but I think it has to be in order to maintain the open feel of the site.
I loved reading the entries and the debates about whether each entry should be added or deleted. It was like a pithy internet version of American Idol. They show off their stuff (Pooky, for instance), the people debate about its "notable" quality, and it either stays on or gets the ax. What fun!
Labels: Wikipedia
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
The Dream
Someone poked a hole in an original Picasso painting. And Nora Ephron blogged about it.
...And I'm cringing as I type because I love Picasso.
...And I'm cringing as I type because I love Picasso.
Labels: Art
Wiki: The First View
I've just hit the tip of the giant iceberg that is Wikipedia. My first thoughts? Not only is it massive (much larger than I had assumed), it's also very intricate. There are layers upon layers of information on the Editing and Tutorial pages alone. It initially seems like an easy-to-use, easy-to-access collaborative encyclopedia, but it's really a complex system of rules and etiquette. What I love about it is the icy politeness of its instructions: They rarely command you to do anything; instead, they suggest it by saying, "It's a good idea to..." and "it can be bad if..." or "it would be useful to read..." It makes you feel welcomed and watched, which I guess is how Wikipedia works.
Labels: Wikipedia
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Death by Video
Against my better judgment, I went to a party last night. Wild party girl that I am, I spent the evening curled in a leather chair reading various Time magazines that my friend Dennis had scattered on the table in his room. I came across this really interesting article and began to think about it in terms of writing, blogs and vlogs. If museums are going high tech to keep up with our ever-shrinking attention spans, are traditional museums dying out? Similarly, is traditional writing dying out in favor of blogs and vlogs? There will always be books; I'm sure of this because the thought of books ceasing to exist or migrating online or becoming shorter and more interactive makes me want to fling myself off the nearest bridge. But will they always be as well read? Will they turn into the traditional museums hurting for money of the literary world? Further (and more relevant to class), will videos replace much of the writing in blogs? Will the attitude be: If you can show it, why bother writing it out?
I don't know. I think it's possible that writing and blogging will shift to incorporate more videos and interactive what-nots. But I have faith that one of the fundamental joys of blogging and writing is to "get it out" -- whatever your "it" may be -- to punch the keys, to express yourself. And I have to believe that no matter how technically savvy we become, we will still appreciate that and make room for it.
I don't know. I think it's possible that writing and blogging will shift to incorporate more videos and interactive what-nots. But I have faith that one of the fundamental joys of blogging and writing is to "get it out" -- whatever your "it" may be -- to punch the keys, to express yourself. And I have to believe that no matter how technically savvy we become, we will still appreciate that and make room for it.
Labels: Technology, Writing
Friday, October 13, 2006
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
DUI
Sometimes I wonder about the kind of person I really am. Is it awful that, as a Saint Joseph College alumna, my first reaction to President Evelyn Lynch's DUI was laughter? I mean, we're talking serious cackling, nearly doubling over with giggles. As an English student who is all too familiar with the most-writers-are-drunks phenomena, I find it hilarious that the English department of Saint Joseph College is housed in Lynch Hall. It's all too fitting.
Two things that may redeem my status as a human being: 1) I wasn't laughing because I want such a negative reputation to befall Saint Joseph College. I love that place and I loved my studies there. 2) I saw the story on the news and was legitimately concerned about whether she had injured herself or anyone else.
But seriously. Isn't it a little funny? (I hope this post doesn't piss anyone off. No, I don't take drinking and driving lightly and no, I don't think drunks are cool.)
Two things that may redeem my status as a human being: 1) I wasn't laughing because I want such a negative reputation to befall Saint Joseph College. I love that place and I loved my studies there. 2) I saw the story on the news and was legitimately concerned about whether she had injured herself or anyone else.
But seriously. Isn't it a little funny? (I hope this post doesn't piss anyone off. No, I don't take drinking and driving lightly and no, I don't think drunks are cool.)
Labels: Drunks
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Alternative Blog
I know we're supposed to be discussing the recent YouTube controversy, but before I get into that, I just want to express my unyielding love for YouTube. I sound more and more like a crotchety old woman with every passing day and what I'm about to say isn't going to help that at all, but I guess that's just the way this particular cookie crumbles.
I miss the good old days.
The days when Connecticut's Radio 104 was an alternative rock station, when VH1 played Pop Up Video incessantly, when instead of downloading music you sat in front of your stereo waiting to push the "record" button on your tape deck so you could capture that awesome, new song for your awesome, new mix. The days when MTV played music videos and devoted their weekends to Top 100 countdowns. YouTube reminds me of my love for music videos. I'm not talking about rappers popping champagne bottles in jacuzzis or emo kids with eyeliner pouting at the camera. I'm talking about great, weird videos like Live's "Lightning Crashes" and "Lakini's Juice." The Smashing Pumpkins' "Thirty-three" or, hell, even Bush's "Swallowed."
OK, maybe I miss the music more than the videos, but however I slice it, YouTube has reunited me with music videos. Good music videos. And for that, I am forever indebted.
In lieu of digging out my baggy jeans and flannel shirts, I'll just watch this.
I miss the good old days.
The days when Connecticut's Radio 104 was an alternative rock station, when VH1 played Pop Up Video incessantly, when instead of downloading music you sat in front of your stereo waiting to push the "record" button on your tape deck so you could capture that awesome, new song for your awesome, new mix. The days when MTV played music videos and devoted their weekends to Top 100 countdowns. YouTube reminds me of my love for music videos. I'm not talking about rappers popping champagne bottles in jacuzzis or emo kids with eyeliner pouting at the camera. I'm talking about great, weird videos like Live's "Lightning Crashes" and "Lakini's Juice." The Smashing Pumpkins' "Thirty-three" or, hell, even Bush's "Swallowed."
OK, maybe I miss the music more than the videos, but however I slice it, YouTube has reunited me with music videos. Good music videos. And for that, I am forever indebted.
In lieu of digging out my baggy jeans and flannel shirts, I'll just watch this.
Labels: I'm An Old Lady, Music, YouTube
Monday, October 09, 2006
(Almost) Back in the Saddle
I try to avoid getting too personal in my blog, but it seems that I, as a blogger, tend to migrate toward the personal stuff, whether it be serious or exciting or mundane. It's what I like to read and what I like to write. So without divulging too many uninteresting personal facts, it's been a rough week: The Illness, the Literary Studies paper, and the unfortunate (though not unexpected) death of a member of my boyfriend's family. But. The Blog must go on.
This quote stuck with me: Emergence is what happens when the whole is smarter than the sum of its parts. It's what happens when you have a system of relatively simple-minded component
parts -- often there are thousands or millions of them -- and they interact in relatively simple ways. And yet somehow out of all this interaction some higher level structure or intelligence appears, usually without any master planner calling the shots.
Doesn't that sort of define blogging? Or maybe it's better said this way: Doesn't that describe the essence of blogs? The whole blogosphere is smarter than the sum of its parts in the sense that its components, even the most highly regarded or complex blogs, operate very simply. A blogger types and links and posts in his or her small block of the internet, and that small block connects with other blocks through links and through the information it spreads, and those other blocks connect to still other blocks. And when you zoom out you see this massive information-spreading system, far more complex than any individual blog.
Emergence is probably why I can spend hours on the internet when only intending to check my email or check my friend's blog.
Also, Chris made a great point about emergence and homework. I whole-heartedly agree.
Johnson's point about signal-to-noise is interesting. Obviously, emergence lends itself to a cacophony of opinions, useful information, some useless information, problems with communication, unwanted messages, etc. What's interesting is that part about Slashdot:
Malda and his crew didn't have the luxury of putting a bunch of people on staff to do it, and I don't think they were temperamentally inclined to do that anyway. They thought it would be better to let the community do it, and follow an open source model in developing a community itself. And so they built the karma system where everything was evaluated by other members of the community, and if you contributed a lot your karma increases. Moderation filters enable you to look at highly rated things and eliminate things that are not highly rated by the community. And it created a kind of currency within the system that enabled quality contributions to rise to the surface.
I wonder: If you try to develop a sort of rating system in blogs, will it eventually become chaotic too? Can everyone agree on what's high quality? I'm not sure about that one.
All of this has me thinking not just about blogs but about forum as well. Forums (fan forums, cooking forums, forums about movie stars, whatever strikes your fancy) are a form of emergence, wouldn't you say? I mean, The X-Files forum is monstrous, and I've gotten lost in it many a day.
...Guess I let the geek out of the bag with that closing line.
This quote stuck with me: Emergence is what happens when the whole is smarter than the sum of its parts. It's what happens when you have a system of relatively simple-minded component
parts -- often there are thousands or millions of them -- and they interact in relatively simple ways. And yet somehow out of all this interaction some higher level structure or intelligence appears, usually without any master planner calling the shots.
Doesn't that sort of define blogging? Or maybe it's better said this way: Doesn't that describe the essence of blogs? The whole blogosphere is smarter than the sum of its parts in the sense that its components, even the most highly regarded or complex blogs, operate very simply. A blogger types and links and posts in his or her small block of the internet, and that small block connects with other blocks through links and through the information it spreads, and those other blocks connect to still other blocks. And when you zoom out you see this massive information-spreading system, far more complex than any individual blog.
Emergence is probably why I can spend hours on the internet when only intending to check my email or check my friend's blog.
Also, Chris made a great point about emergence and homework. I whole-heartedly agree.
Johnson's point about signal-to-noise is interesting. Obviously, emergence lends itself to a cacophony of opinions, useful information, some useless information, problems with communication, unwanted messages, etc. What's interesting is that part about Slashdot:
Malda and his crew didn't have the luxury of putting a bunch of people on staff to do it, and I don't think they were temperamentally inclined to do that anyway. They thought it would be better to let the community do it, and follow an open source model in developing a community itself. And so they built the karma system where everything was evaluated by other members of the community, and if you contributed a lot your karma increases. Moderation filters enable you to look at highly rated things and eliminate things that are not highly rated by the community. And it created a kind of currency within the system that enabled quality contributions to rise to the surface.
I wonder: If you try to develop a sort of rating system in blogs, will it eventually become chaotic too? Can everyone agree on what's high quality? I'm not sure about that one.
All of this has me thinking not just about blogs but about forum as well. Forums (fan forums, cooking forums, forums about movie stars, whatever strikes your fancy) are a form of emergence, wouldn't you say? I mean, The X-Files forum is monstrous, and I've gotten lost in it many a day.
...Guess I let the geek out of the bag with that closing line.
Labels: Blogging, Internet, The X-Files
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Vapor Action
I'm not sure when they came out with Spearmint Halls (with advanced vapor action!), but they, along with Puffs tissues and saltines, are my life lines. I'm sort of fretting about the fact that I feel like I've been run over and have to begin working on a paper for my Literary Studies class. Not to mention, the title I want to use for the paper -- First Person Plural -- has already been taken by this guy. That's a great book, by the way, so he deserves the title.
Labels: Academics
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Bleh
I've made a blogging no-no. I haven't posted in a few days. In my defense, I'm currently in the clutches of The Illness: part cold, part stomach flu. Oh, yeah.
In Monday's class, Dan Gerstein (Lieberman's "counter-puncher," as Colin calls him) and Tim Tagaris (Lamont's blog-and-internet machine) visited to discuss the role blogging and the internet has played in the Lieberman/Lamont race. Every now and then they both shot off on tangents completely unrelated to blogging, but very relevant to the campaign. It was incredibly intense. I kept watching Tim's leg bounce up and down, waiting for him to pounce. Great stuff. They both played well. They were cordial, well-informed and persuasive, though if you came into class already on one side of the Lieberman/Lamont fence, you weren't going to be persuaded otherwise, just more convinced of your own opinion. Kind of like blogs themselves. Huh.
I have lots of other things to blog about, but I need to head back to mydeath bed.
In Monday's class, Dan Gerstein (Lieberman's "counter-puncher," as Colin calls him) and Tim Tagaris (Lamont's blog-and-internet machine) visited to discuss the role blogging and the internet has played in the Lieberman/Lamont race. Every now and then they both shot off on tangents completely unrelated to blogging, but very relevant to the campaign. It was incredibly intense. I kept watching Tim's leg bounce up and down, waiting for him to pounce. Great stuff. They both played well. They were cordial, well-informed and persuasive, though if you came into class already on one side of the Lieberman/Lamont fence, you weren't going to be persuaded otherwise, just more convinced of your own opinion. Kind of like blogs themselves. Huh.
I have lots of other things to blog about, but I need to head back to my
Labels: Blogging, I'm An Old Lady, Politics
Sunday, October 01, 2006
YouTube, MeTube
I've been considering the YouTube videos in the Lieberman/Lamont race. These, I think, have the potential to be more convincing and more widely consumed than the political blogs. Here's why I think that: 1) Even though they can be edited (and probably manipulated), there's something highly effectual about seeing a candidate speak about the issues and interact with reporters and others. This is not to say that written interviews or bipartisan "newsy" articles are not effective, but videos have a sort of "exhibit A!" quality about them. 2) Let's face it: our attention spans are shrinking. YouTube videos not only eliminate reading, but also any extraneous information (commercials, etc.) so you get exactly what you came to see. 3) And for the people who do keep up with the campaign and with politics, for those who read a variety of sources, YouTube videos allow them to re-watch particular segments, see other opinions, track politician appearances and all that jazz.
By the way, I like this video. And I like Lamont.
By the way, I like this video. And I like Lamont.