Papers

[andrewducker]

The front of every tabloid this morning was the Jackson trial, which I have zero interest in.

The Guardian was covering some kind of sporting event, about which I care even less.

The Independent led with the world first of brain cells being created in a laboratory, which is likely to be very good news (in the long term) for an awful lot of people and lead to huge medical advantages.

I feel vaguely smug about my choice of paper.

Comments

[andrewducker]

I don't care that those people are famous - I care that they have interesting ideas. I look forward to entries by heron61 just as much, or theferret.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

*actually chokes on his coffee*

In rl conversations, if you refer to Warren Ellis, Wil Wheaton, Neil gaiman etc and the things that they've said on their blogs or whatever, you'll use their names. You don't nearly as much with other non-internet-or-otherwise-celebrity people. And it can't be that you use those names to get people to go look, because you'll drop them into conversation with people who (i'd imagine) you know have no interest in those people.

You may not, of course, be aware that you do this.

[andrewducker]

It goes to show how much attention you pay to what I say - I've been to Wil's home page maybe twice ever :->

Warren Ellis says interesting things quite a lot, and Neil Gaiman forwards on interesting links and mentions of his new projects (both of which I find interesting). I do know that I've mentioned TheFerrett at least twice this week to people, but that is, admittedly, rarer.

Also, saying "Neil Gaiman was writing about X" needs no explanation for most of my friends. Saying "TheFerrett, who is this guy off of LJ, was writing about X" usually makes for odd looks, and is therefore likely to be mentioned less.

And I can't imagine who I'v ementioned either Gaiman or Ellis to who'd have no knowledge of the names. I possibly have, but I'd tend to only use them when talking to non-work people, who generally are comics reading freaks.