<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Mathew's comments - Latest Comments in Good or bad&amp;#63; Wrong question</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://mathewingram.disqus.com/good_or_bad63_wrong_question/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:41:56 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Good or bad&amp;#63; Wrong question</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/03/30/good-or-bad-wrong-question/#comment-1312604</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I think you're probably right, Webomatica -- that's a good way to look at it. Or there's always the crack analogy, which Mark clearly prefers  :-)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;And Karoli, I expect that you and I are probably very similar -- I'm tempted by Twitter and other tools as well, because of what they make possible. And I'm a big fan of &lt;a href="http://del.icio.us" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="del.icio.us"&gt;del.icio.us&lt;/a&gt; as well, and likely couldn't live without it.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Mathew</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:41:56 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Good or bad&amp;#63; Wrong question</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/03/30/good-or-bad-wrong-question/#comment-1312601</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The time-wasting aspect was my first objection to Twitter.  Well, that and the idea of telling a bunch of people what I was doing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But I've found value in it.  Not the same value that I find in blogs and blogging, but they're tools that I consider 'augmenting' tools to the larger social media connections.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Still, I'm easily distracted (as evidenced by the fact that I'm here commenting on your post instead of finishing up Friday-afternoon details), and so I have to really pay attention to how I use them and when.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I use Reddit but actually prefer &lt;a href="http://del.icio.us" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="del.icio.us"&gt;del.icio.us&lt;/a&gt; (mostly because I used it first), and that I could not live without.   It makes my life much, much easier because with one mouse click I can organize pages, sites, blog posts and other material I want to find again.  Far from being timewasting, I view it as one of my most valuable tools.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Karoli</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:14:15 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Good or bad&amp;#63; Wrong question</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/03/30/good-or-bad-wrong-question/#comment-1312599</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Things like Twitter are just digital crack - little real value but certainly good places to waste time if you want something else to do other than watch TV.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Mark Evans</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:03:15 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Good or bad&amp;#63; Wrong question</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/03/30/good-or-bad-wrong-question/#comment-1312595</link><description>&lt;p&gt;What's better is relative, but personally it is worth noting that newspapers are largely relevant for a day or two, magazines go into depth on a weekly basis, while novels are supposed to last longer and not be so time sensitive. Then there's the sensational tabloids and all that that entails.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It seems the web certainly leans more towards the tabloid, time sensitive side because of its digital nature (just can't imagine reading anything really long let alone a novel on a computer) and the short, instant gratification audience.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">webomatica</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:35:28 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>