"to take part in 'a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress.'"
i think that i might, after all, like the economist.
up until now i have been prejudiced against it. mainly because of who introduced me to it, not that i don't love them dearly, but they are a class apart and i always lumped it in with them.
also because of that slightly superior little quote they put by their "enum/chron" information and because of things like this:
=
but deep in my heart i always knew i liked that advertising campaign. and the other day when i was reading...er, checking, it on the bindery cart i found this article that i couldn't put back on the cart until i'd found the
online version. i haven't actually finished reading it yet, but i like talking. and words and stuff. but mostly i like that it's kind of not that novel of an idea to me (that conversational rules would be relatively universal throughout time and geography--i almost said time and space, but then i realized that maybe aliens DO converse differently than humans do.) and i think in other hands, dare i at this fledgling state of my support say lesser hands? it could've been a boring short read. and this isn't. at least not to me.
i also like that it's published anonymously, but i don't really understand that because then it went on to talk about the prominent editors of the past.
and then also
tim started a blog with a post about an article from the economist and i just feel like maybe it's time at last to embrace.
and why do i feel the need to declare that publicly? oh well. it's my weblog not yours.
Posts
