Advertisement
by World Assembly Improvement Foundation » Tue Jun 28, 2016 11:34 pm
by Jarish Inyo » Wed Jun 29, 2016 12:21 am
In a world where internet use in often required to submit job applications, apply to colleges, and turn in high school assignments to a plagiarism checker, yes, internet access is a right, because people have a right to an education and a right to a minimum standard of living.
Digital documents are superior to paper documents . almost every way, especially because they allow instant feedback on misspelled words, allow work to be saved in multiple locations, and can have a uniform look and format. In order for these digital documents to have maximum use in ab educational setting, they need to be able to be sent from one device to another (either from school to home and vice versa, or from a student to a teacher, etc). The internet is the most practical way to allow data to be shared between digital devices. Therefore the internet is valuable to education because it facilitates the use of superior digital documents as opposed to paper documents.
The internet facilitates communication between distant individuals. A powerful social tool.
The internet is the easiest way to spread a political message to thousands of individuals across a planet, short of simultaneously mind controlling everyone.
by Llorens » Wed Jun 29, 2016 12:42 am
Jarish Inyo wrote:In a world where internet use in often required to submit job applications, apply to colleges, and turn in high school assignments to a plagiarism checker, yes, internet access is a right, because people have a right to an education and a right to a minimum standard of living.
And we would have to disagree. Access is not anymore a right then access to television, radio or a phone. One can still turn is school assignments and fill out applications to colleges and employment without access to the internet. No one's right to an education and a right to a minimum standard of living is actually being effected. And without access to the internet, a plagiarism checker would not be needed for students.Digital documents are superior to paper documents . almost every way, especially because they allow instant feedback on misspelled words, allow work to be saved in multiple locations, and can have a uniform look and format. In order for these digital documents to have maximum use in ab educational setting, they need to be able to be sent from one device to another (either from school to home and vice versa, or from a student to a teacher, etc). The internet is the most practical way to allow data to be shared between digital devices. Therefore the internet is valuable to education because it facilitates the use of superior digital documents as opposed to paper documents.
You don't have a real argument here. All you state is that the internet is the easiest way to transfer digital documentation. Funny considering that assignments are still required to be printed out and turned in. Digital documents are in no way superior to paper documents.The internet facilitates communication between distant individuals. A powerful social tool.
Actually, no. One can actually communicate between each other between great distances by something called a telephone or even a letter. The internet is not in any way a powerful social tool. One does not actually socialize with anyone.The internet is the easiest way to spread a political message to thousands of individuals across a planet, short of simultaneously mind controlling everyone.
And incorrect. People don't actually take part in political discussion. Most don't even know what the originator of a comment or a speech actually said. People get catch phrases of what from individual that promotes and twist the comment or speechto their ideology.
by World Assembly Improvement Foundation » Wed Jun 29, 2016 12:47 am
by Jarish Inyo » Wed Jun 29, 2016 1:58 am
Social interaction is a core element of this very website.
Unfortunately, a letter is extremely inefficient and a telephone call doesn't have a transcript which you can look over once you're done.
Digital documents are clearly superior to paper documents: they allow instant feedback, don't use valuable physical resources, and are a lot cheaper considering that a physical document uses paper and ink.
People have the right to access a radio or telephone because of their right to free communication
Ever hear of public broadcasting? Or emergency call boxes? Television and phone access often is publicly provided.
Not in the secondary schools I went to, and not the colleges I applied for, and not roughly 60% of the businesses I applied to work at. I either had to use my own internet access or publicly provided internet access (or terminals located within the business I was applying to work at, which still used the internet).
Funny how they often aren't.
Then how would you check for plagiarism? You either need the internet, or you have widespread plagiarism that doesn't get caught, which certainly does not benefit education.
I also explained why digital documents benefitted education, but you apparently didn't read that.
Citation needed.
I offered several different facts about digital documents that demonstrate superiority over paper (multiple copies in differing locations prevent loss of important documents, spell check programs offer instant feedback on spelling and grammar errors, uniform formatting and font create a standardized look for documents, improved readability compared to handwritten documents, no jamming compared to typewritten documents... and more). Meanwhile you have not offered any argument for why paper is superior to digital.
Letters are inherently slower than light communications. The internet is inherently lightspeed communications.
Letters can easily get lost in transit. Internet packets can be lost, but it is far less likely.
If a letter is destroyed, it can't be recovered.
Electronic communications can be backed up, and resent in the event of a failure.
A letter can only be sent to one address at a time.
Electronic communications can be sent to multiple recipients at once.
In short, internet communications are superior to letters in every way.
That's not what a social tool is. Try again.
Citation needed. I know exactly what the originator of this proposal originally said, thanks to the internet. I also know what those people in General originally said... thanks to the internet.
by Llorens » Wed Jun 29, 2016 2:53 am
Jarish Inyo wrote:Social interaction is a core element of this very website.
Incorrect. Social interaction is not a core element of very website. In fact, most websites don't have anything to do with social interaction at all. A core element of every website is money.
Jarish Inyo wrote:Unfortunately, a letter is extremely inefficient and a telephone call doesn't have a transcript which you can look over once you're done.
A letter is not inefficient in the least. On can record a phone call if on really is interested keeping a record.
Jarish Inyo wrote:Digital documents are clearly superior to paper documents: they allow instant feedback, don't use valuable physical resources, and are a lot cheaper considering that a physical document uses paper and ink.
Again, digital documents not superior. They do not allow for instant feed back at all. It still take the same amount of time for the person to read and get back to someone as a physical copy. The resource you are referring to is actually inexpensive then the digital device and programs that one would have to purchase to create the digital copy.
Jarish Inyo wrote:People have the right to access a radio or telephone because of their right to free communication
People do not have a right to access radio or telephone as there is no right to free communication. Nice try though.
Jarish Inyo wrote:Ever hear of public broadcasting? Or emergency call boxes? Television and phone access often is publicly provided.
Actually, television and phone access is not publicly provided. Emergency call boxes is something that a government may provide, but they are not free as taxes pay for them and they don't allow one to call just anyone. Public broadcast channels are privately owned and paid for by advertisement. Phone access is provided by a company that charges for the use of a phone. Again access to a television or phone is not a right.
Jarish Inyo wrote:Not in the secondary schools I went to, and not the colleges I applied for, and not roughly 60% of the businesses I applied to work at. I either had to use my own internet access or publicly provided internet access (or terminals located within the business I was applying to work at, which still used the internet).Funny how they often aren't.
How funny that there are. It's your experience that you didn't need to turn in a physical of your work. I just had kid that just finished his school and still had to turn in physical copies of his reports. And had to fill out physical applications for collage and jobs. Basing the argument RL experiences doesn't show that either argument is incorrect.
Jarish Inyo wrote:Then how would you check for plagiarism? You either need the internet, or you have widespread plagiarism that doesn't get caught, which certainly does not benefit education.
Incorrect. Without the internet, it isn't as easy to plagiarizes others works. So it wasn't as common as it is today.
Jarish Inyo wrote:I also explained why digital documents benefitted education, but you apparently didn't read that.
I read it. And it wasn't an explanation at all. As you all you stated: "In order for these digital documents to have maximum use in ab educational setting, they need to be able to be sent from one device to another (either from school to home and vice versa, or from a student to a teacher, etc). The internet is the most practical way to allow data to be shared between digital devices. Therefore the internet is valuable to education because it facilitates the use of superior digital documents as opposed to paper documents."
This is not an argument for the internet being a valuable educational tool.
Jarish Inyo wrote:Citation needed.
I offered several different facts about digital documents that demonstrate superiority over paper (multiple copies in differing locations prevent loss of important documents, spell check programs offer instant feedback on spelling and grammar errors, uniform formatting and font create a standardized look for documents, improved readability compared to handwritten documents, no jamming compared to typewritten documents... and more). Meanwhile you have not offered any argument for why paper is superior to digital.
Actually, your so called demonstrate digital documents superiority over paper don't actually hold water. You make a great argument for using a word processing program, but not an argument for digital documents superiority. After all, its the word processor that offers an instant feedback on spelling and grammar errors, uniform formatting and font create a standardized look for documents, improved readability compared to handwritten documents. Not the document itself. And I can print out multiple copies and store them in different locations that prevents the from being lost.
Citation needed for you argument.
Jarish Inyo wrote:Letters are inherently slower than light communications. The internet is inherently lightspeed communications.
Letters can easily get lost in transit. Internet packets can be lost, but it is far less likely.
If a letter is destroyed, it can't be recovered.
Electronic communications can be backed up, and resent in the event of a failure.
A letter can only be sent to one address at a time.
Electronic communications can be sent to multiple recipients at once.
In short, internet communications are superior to letters in every way.
Citation needed for you argument.
An email can be destroyed and not recovered and not resent in event of a failure. A letter can be sent to multiple recipients at once. So other then the speed issue, internet communications are not superior to letters in every way.
Jarish Inyo wrote:That's not what a social tool is. Try again.
Incorrect. A social tool enables people socialize. Something that doesn't actually happen when one is clicking like on a website. They are not interacting with anyone.
Jarish Inyo wrote:Citation needed. I know exactly what the originator of this proposal originally said, thanks to the internet. I also know what those people in General originally said... thanks to the internet.
You know what people have said? Really, even after they have edited their comments and their original post can not be found?
I'm sure one can look at any public figure and find so called scandals because they supposedly said something that they didn't say or was just a small snipe of an entire comment.
by Llorens » Wed Jun 29, 2016 3:19 am
by Jarish Inyo » Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:18 am
This website, not every website. Read before you respond. This is also a generalisation.
A letter is inefficient, in all circumstances. I'm pretty sure that waiting at least a couple of days for a reply letter isn't as efficient as sending an email or text that is instant. You really can't keep a record of a telephone call, unless you can track down your phone service provider and listen and write it. The fact is that having physical proof of what has been said is a lot more useful when trying to maintain conversations, a key element of social interaction on the Internet.
This is wrong in all ways. It is EXTREMELY clear that you CAN in fact get instant feedback, and the point about it taking the same as a physical copy makes no sense. Physical copy = time, online copy = instant. It's very simple. Sure, you have to pay for the device (unless you read my draft in which an individual's device is possibly funded by the government or an individual can use library resources), but in the long-term a device definitely wins in terms of cost.
Sure they do, disallowing them from accessing these is completely immoral.
Another generalisation - in many cases, these services are publicly provided. Unless you can name every television and phone service provider, and identify that each of them is not publicly provided, then don't both with making such a claim. This whole talk about these funding of these communication services is completely irrelevant to the proposal.
You were making the claim that you don't need the internet at all for this, making your argument irrelevant. If WAIF has experience in real life where he has had to apply to jobs and such using the internet, it disproves your claim. On a side note, your spelling is horrible.
This is irrelevant. Having other people's works and information is essential to furthering knowledge. This plagiarism argument in itself is basically irrelevant to the proposal.
Digital documents are reliable. You can keep plenty of copies of a physical document, but this is an inconvenience and also, still, unreliable.
No citation needed if you can explain common sense facts. I thought you said, "It still take the same amount of time for the person to read and get back to someone as a physical copy." You've basically gone back on what you said earlier in your statement.
ANOTHER generalisation - you can't just assume that no website has ever allowed some form of social interaction between users. Again, THIS VERY WEBSITE is an example of social interaction.
Completely irrelevant. Pretty much the opposite of your fallacious generalisations - here you are being very specific.
To be honest all this talk has become quite irrelevant. I am aware that I don't own the thread and I can't exactly dictate the discussion that occurs, but I would appreciate if we could stop with the whole 'internet isn't important' argument, because frankly I am going to persist with this Act anyway and it's completely unhelpful. If you feel the need to debate the importance or relevance of this argument, I am no longer going to be involved.
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:31 am
Llorens wrote:To be honest all this talk has become quite irrelevant. I am aware that I don't own the thread and I can't exactly dictate the discussion that occurs, but I would appreciate if we could stop with the whole 'internet isn't important' argument, because frankly I am going to persist with this Act anyway and it's completely unhelpful. If you feel the need to debate the importance or relevance of this argument, I am no longer going to be involved.
by Araraukar » Wed Jun 29, 2016 9:48 am
Jarish Inyo wrote:Show me a single website that isn't trying to sale or advertise something.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Jarish Inyo » Wed Jun 29, 2016 9:50 am
by Oceanias Michael Moore » Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:59 am
by Llorens » Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:40 pm
Jarish Inyo wrote:Here are a few questions you should consider.
First the two most common questions.
1) How is this an international issue?
Try explaining how the lack or limited internet access of country A effects countries B, C, and D.
2) Why governments must pay for digital devices, internet infrastructure facilities and provide internet access?
And now the rest.
3) How does internet access further education over libraries?
4) How does internet access further economic development?
5) How does internet access increased what freedom of expression a nation permits?
6) How does internet access make a government more accountable?
7) How does internet access create stronger civic societies/institutions?
by Llorens » Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:58 pm
by Jarish Inyo » Wed Jun 29, 2016 5:55 pm
1) Multiple countries don't have to be involved with each other. In a real life context, the UN created the Declaration of Universal Human Rights. Sure, some of them might involve multiple countries, but many are personal rights. This is still international law. This is your right because it is your right to the best possible education, and if countries have the appropriate means to provide the Internet, and do not, this would be restricting that right.
2) It's their citizens right to the best possible education, and so they must provide these services if possible.
3) The wording is a bit off in this question, but I'll answer it both ways that I am interpreting it:
A. Many people use libraries to contact their families and find welfare programs. I believe WAIF already pointed this out with the Gates Foundation link.
B. I don't know how to answer this if you are asking why the Internet is better than a library, since my proposal suggests the joint usage of these resources. Of course, though we won't agree, digital documents are obviously superior.
4) Businesses can use the Internet as a great tool to spread the word about their services. It can help to get them recognised, or to sell a genius product. It encourages more business interaction.
5) The Internet is also a valuable expressive tool, whether through sharing your ideas (*cough TED talks cough*) or sharing your talents (*cough YouTube cough*). Sure, you could do these without, but the fact that you are recognised more on the Internet allows for greater sharing of your personal expression. For example, you could have a target audience that you would like to share a business idea with, on the other side of the world. For the sake of cost and convenience, you use this fabulous resource called the Internet! By disallowing the Internet, you're limiting freedom of expression, because they are not free to express to all people.
6) Through the media, a valuable informative source, even if often biased. A government can choose to slide a policy that mightn't be so popular, such as a tax increase, under the carpet. Due to the inherently pervasive nature of the media, these things gets reported on, making the government more accountable for their actions.
7) Because it modernises them. Yes, a society can be 'modern' without the Internet (though in today's world, not really), but the Internet is an essential tool to making it the best it can be. It also creates stronger communities, through stronger online interaction. Keep in mind that a community is not just the people you live near to, but are a group of people who share something in common (e.g. the NationStates community). Without the Internet, the ability to communicate from a distance and with multiple people in one conversation is practically impossible.
by Llorens » Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:31 pm
by Wallenburg » Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:59 pm
by World Assembly Improvement Foundation » Thu Jun 30, 2016 2:15 am
Jarish Inyo wrote:Ever hear of public broadcasting? Or emergency call boxes? Television and phone access often is publicly provided.
Actually, television and phone access is not publicly provided.
Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 wrote:it is in the public interest for the Federal Government to ensure that all citizens of the United States have access to public telecommunications services through all appropriate available telecommunications distribution technologies;
Emergency call boxes is something that a government may provide, but they are not free as taxes pay for them
and they don't allow one to call just anyone.
Public broadcast channels are privately owned and paid for by advertisement.
(i) Report to Congress
The Corporation shall submit an annual report for the preceding fiscal year ending September 30 to the President for transmittal to the Congress on or before the 15th day of May of each year. The report shall include —
a comprehensive and detailed report of the Corporation's operations, activities, financial condition, and accomplishments under this subpart and such recommendations as the Corporation deems appropriate;
a comprehensive and detailed inventory of funds distributed by Federal agencies to public telecommunications entities during the preceding fiscal year;
How funny that there are. It's your experience that you didn't need to turn in a physical of your work.
Then how would you check for plagiarism? You either need the internet, or you have widespread plagiarism that doesn't get caught, which certainly does not benefit education.
Incorrect. Without the internet, it isn't as easy to plagiarizes others works. So it wasn't as common as it is today.
Actually, your so called demonstrate digital documents superiority over paper don't actually hold water. You make a great argument for using a word processing program, but not an argument for digital documents superiority.
After all, its the word processor that offers an instant feedback on spelling and grammar errors,
uniform formatting and font create a standardized look for documents,
improved readability compared to handwritten documents. Not the document itself.
And I can print out multiple copies and store them in different locations that prevents the from being lost.
Letters are inherently slower than light communications. The internet is inherently lightspeed communications.
Letters can easily get lost in transit. Internet packets can be lost, but it is far less likely.
If a letter is destroyed, it can't be recovered.
Electronic communications can be backed up, and resent in the event of a failure.
A letter can only be sent to one address at a time.
Electronic communications can be sent to multiple recipients at once.
In short, internet communications are superior to letters in every way.
Citation needed for you argument.
That's not what a social tool is. Try again.
You know what people have said? Really, even after they have edited their comments and their original post can not be found?
I'm sure one can look at any public figure and find so called scandals because they supposedly said something that they didn't say or was just a small snipe of an entire comment.
by Jarish Inyo » Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:23 am
Really? It is in the United States:
So, can we drop the dishonest arguments?
They can be used by non-citizens, and individuals who do not have an income, and individuals on a fixed income, none of which pay taxes, and therefore are provided access for free.
Also, this argument is ridiculous, because we weren't talking about whether or not the internet was free, but whether it was a right.
I strongly suggest you read the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which specifies that Public Broadcasting Act may receive grants from the Federal government in addition to funds already granted to it by appropriation Acts, and additionally:
(i) Report to Congress
The Corporation shall submit an annual report for the preceding fiscal year ending September 30 to the President for transmittal to the Congress on or before the 15th day of May of each year. The report shall include —
a comprehensive and detailed report of the Corporation's operations, activities, financial condition, and accomplishments under this subpart and such recommendations as the Corporation deems appropriate;
a comprehensive and detailed inventory of funds distributed by Federal agencies to public telecommunications entities during the preceding fiscal year;
To claim that public broadcasting is not provided by the government is a lie.
It was also the experience of thousands of students who go to my highschool every year. Just because wherever your kid went to school didn't require internet access to turn things in, doesn't mean it was the case everywhere. You are generalizing.
It is, in some places, absolutely required to get through school and get a job to have internet access.
Copying your friend's paper or reusing one that you wrote two years ago for another class at another school is just as easy without internet as with it. Plagiarism is just as easy to do and easier to get away with without the internet.
Word processors require digital documents. Tell me, have you ever seen a word processor work on a paper document?
Digital documents can be used with word processors. Paper documents can't. Superior.
It offers that feedback only on digital documents. Digital 1, paper 0.
It formats digital documents. Digital up by 2.
Digital documents are more readable than handwritten. Printed documents require a digital document. Digital takes the hat trick
And I can print out multiple copies and store them in different locations that prevents the from being lost.
Which is more expensive and time consuming.
Quotes, screen shots, data on the NS servers. Editing the post doesn't erase the evidence.
Also, hundreds of thousands of posts have never been edited.
by Araraukar » Thu Jun 30, 2016 7:19 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by World Assembly Improvement Foundation » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:53 pm
Jarish Inyo wrote:Really? It is in the United States:So, can we drop the dishonest arguments?
Actually, its not.
Nor has there been any dishonest arguments. You might actually want read the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.
While it does state what you quoted, the government does not actually provide for or own any public broadcasting facilities that are broadcast for the American citizens.
With the exception of the NOAA Weather Radio Any public broadcasting are either privately owned or part of collages.
And one should point out that the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 encourages the growth and development of public radio and television broadcasting, including the use of such media for instructional, educational, and cultural purposes; encouragement and support of public telecommunications, while matters of importance for private and local development, are also of appropriate and important concern to the Federal Government; to encourage public telecommunications services which will be responsive to the interests of people both in particular localities; encourage the development of programming that involves creative risks and that addresses the needs of unserved and underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities.
It also states a private corporation should be created to facilitate the development of public telecommunications and to afford maximum protection from extraneous interference and control. As you can see, the US Government doesn't actually provide public broadcasting. It's all privately owned.
Internet is not a right. Nor, using your example, is the access to public telecommunications services a right in the United States.
Its not a lie in any form. While the US Government can provide funding, it does not own the actual stations, nor has any say in the what is broadcast on those channels.
I'm not generalizing. You are. Thousands of kids went to my kids school too. They didn't need internet to complete and turn in assignments.
And one doesn't need internet to get through school. Nor is it required.
After all, it would put those children that don't have internet at a disadvantage and would discriminate against them.
Actually, it's not. A class from 2 years ago would not be covering the same subject.
And a teachers would pick up on 2 identical papers from two students.
Word processors require digital documents. Tell me, have you ever seen a word processor work on a paper document?
Digital documents can be used with word processors. Paper documents can't. Superior.
Incorrect. Digital documents require a word processor. Not the other way around.
And yes, I have seen word processors work with paper documents. So, no not superior at all.
It offers that feedback only on digital documents. Digital 1, paper 0.
Not at all. One can still get feed back on paper documents.
It formats digital documents. Digital up by 2.
Incorrect. You have to remember that those formats were developed for use on paper before there was digital documents. SO claiming that paper can not have an uniform formatting and font is false.
Digital documents are more readable than handwritten. Printed documents require a digital document. Digital takes the hat trick
Again, incorrect, Printed documents do not require a digital document at all.
And it can be debatable if digital documents are more readable than handwritten. it depends on the persons handwriting.
And I can print out multiple copies and store them in different locations that prevents the from being lost.
Which is more expensive and time consuming.
Actually, no its not. Printers can produce a document rather quickly and inexpensive. Nor is storing multiple copies expensive or time consuming.
Still not what a social tool is. According to everyone's favorite encyclopedia, Social Media "are computer-mediated tools that allow people, companies and other organizations to create, share, or exchange information, career interests, ideas, and pictures/videos in virtual communities and networks."
Please, cite me a definition of social tool that requires socializing.
Considering that you didn't cite me a definition of social tool, I'll cite you other definitions.
Dictionary.com
websites and other online means of communication that are used by large groups of people to share information and to develop social and professional contacts.
Anvil Media
An umbrella term that defines the various activities that integrate technology, social interaction, and the construction of words and pictures
Bottle PR
Software tools that allow groups to generate content and engage in peer-to-peer conversations and exchange of content.
Notice terms like social contacts, social interaction, and peer-to-peer?
You took screen shots of every post?
You have access to the NS servers?
Editing changes what is seen, Not everything is in quotes.
So you don't actually know what is said.
And for hundreds of thousands of posts have never been edited, there is equal amount of post that have been.
by Araraukar » Thu Jun 30, 2016 5:16 pm
World Assembly Improvement Foundation wrote:*snip*
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Jun 30, 2016 5:50 pm
Araraukar wrote:World Assembly Improvement Foundation wrote:*snip*
OOC: I don't think Jarish was saying digital things (writing stuff on computers) weren't a good thing to have or use, or that you necessarily needed to do it manually (typewriters? c'mon, pens have been invented too), but that you don't need the Internet to do it. Non-connected computers still exist, you know.
by Araraukar » Fri Jul 01, 2016 1:06 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Parsons: (hearing this because of MI-5) I remember back when the Foreign Office had not typewriters. It was horrific. Couldn't read anything, and if you wrote well enough that other people could, then your hand would fall off by the end of the day.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:27 am
Araraukar wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:Parsons: (hearing this because of MI-5) I remember back when the Foreign Office had not typewriters. It was horrific. Couldn't read anything, and if you wrote well enough that other people could, then your hand would fall off by the end of the day.
OOC: Some fun facts about me: when I have to write fast, I default for using capital letters; when writing something official, I use the... I think it's called "print"? the form of writing that mimics Arial font; but when I'm writing unhurried notes for myself, cursive all the way.
And yes, I do write a lot by hand for my various stories. Pen and paper don't depend on anything but light to work.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement