<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Willy</title>
      <link>http://blog.lib.umn.edu/matts293/willy1301/</link>
      <description></description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2013</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:40:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/?v=4.31-en</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

      
      <item>
	
         <title>Smells like a little confusion</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>I felt that the points Matt Compton was trying to make were relevant, in that he was able to communicate them in a simple way and as others have said he made them repetitively. Although, there are a few things in his paper that just seemed to make the points he made not influential. He used too many opinionative points that I felt had no weight as arguments. His analogy of the person hitting their thumb with a hammer and that someone who hasnâ€™t had that feeling could not understand what that actually feels like compared to someone listening to Kurt Cobainâ€™s song â€œSmells Like Teen Spiritâ€? who hasnâ€™t felt the magnitude of adolescent social conformity cannot understand what he means is a totally inappropriate argument. A more relevant argument would be that at that age youth are looking for something to relate to, be that the music of Nirvana or a certain group of people (emo, preppy, whatever), but the people that critiqued the music or felt that they did not understand the message maybe they just did not understand what he was saying. But to do what Compton said, which was that if you havenâ€™t felt what Cobain is singing then you wonâ€™t understand is a completely inappropriate statement. </p>]]></description>
         <link>http://blog.lib.umn.edu/matts293/willy1301/2007/07/smells_like_a_little_confusion.html</link>
         <guid>http://blog.lib.umn.edu/matts293/willy1301/2007/07/smells_like_a_little_confusion.html</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:40:18 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
	
         <title>RR #1: The World is a Text: Intro</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>I felt that this intro was fairly common sense. Although it did make me aware of the ideas that were present. For one thing I felt I was always perceiving the world rather than reading it, but that would make just as much sense. When the author(s) mention in the TEXT, THE WORLD, YOU, AND YOUR PAPERS section that â€œto our knowledge, there has never been a great writer who was not also a great thinker. What's more, to be a great thinker and a great writer, we must also be great readers." I thought that this was a piece of text. Not that most of us are not great readers in the metaphorical sense; that we can read the world, but rather that I know many people, myself included, that are not good text readers and prefer not to do it. I wonder how this limits our ability to read the world and if it truly does.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://blog.lib.umn.edu/matts293/willy1301/2007/06/rr_1_the_world_is_a_text_intro.html</link>
         <guid>http://blog.lib.umn.edu/matts293/willy1301/2007/06/rr_1_the_world_is_a_text_intro.html</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>
