Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I wrote this JUST FOR YOU GUYS: http://www.thepoxbox.com/challenges.php?id=stupidbooks

God seriously aren't you sick of all these ( probably fat ) nerds posting images about books being so much better than tv/ movies/ whatever? They act like reading makes them creative and smart when in fact they're just wasting their time because instead of being done with Harry Potter in 2 hours like normal people, they have to waste 20 reading it.

The only reason I ever read books is because I'm away from a computer, which in the future should never happen again as smart phones, tablets and laptops are increasingly cheap and portable and the internet is available everywhere.

Book are pretty lame. Except this one, which you should buy. Twice.

Sometimes I punch books 'cause they're for nerds

go directly to jail . . . you don't get maddox' girlfriend, you don't pass start & you don't receive $200

--supergandhi64

I hate it when people think they're superior and smarter than others just because they read books.

At 5/5/13 01:17 PM, Happygrounder wrote: I hate it when people think they're superior and smarter than others just because they read books.

well use this new knowledge to shit on them. WOOHOO.

Books do the opposite of make people less intelligent. A year ago it wasn't uncommon for me to read a 300 page book in a day or two, making high school subjects that are based on language/sociology very menial for me. That being said, if you want to learn about a fictional story, such as Harry Potter, I do prefer movies to books. In terms of learning, you won't learn anything beyond the very basics if all your learning is based on what you watch, some reading is required. Reading is good, and not all avid readers are dilettantes.

Good. Now I have a justification as to why I don't read.

At 5/5/13 01:26 PM, hecticjon wrote: poxpower you better eat that 100th candy.

I can't, they don't make them anymore : O
:(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oompas

At 5/5/13 01:34 PM, hecticjon wrote:

At 5/5/13 01:30 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/5/13 01:26 PM, hecticjon wrote: poxpower you better eat that 100th candy.

I can't, they don't make them anymore : O

(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oompas

they need to update the list then

I don't think anyone is in charge of that lol.
I'm trying to find some on Ebay... No luck

Yeah I hate reading, perhaps hate is a strong word but lets just say I haven't cracked open a book in probably over a year.

this is DarkMatter and I approve this message.

At 5/5/13 01:43 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/5/13 01:34 PM, hecticjon wrote:

At 5/5/13 01:30 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/5/13 01:26 PM, hecticjon wrote: poxpower you better eat that 100th candy.

I can't, they don't make them anymore : O

(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oompas

they need to update the list then

I don't think anyone is in charge of that lol.
I'm trying to find some on Ebay... No luck

Just eat a thousand skittles to compensate.

I was hoping the article might say that we shouldn't use textbooks anymore, but I'm not that lucky. Of course, I'm not much to say myself as I'm going to be in an online class this semester.

There's tons of stupid movies. In fact, aren't you more likely to come across an educational book than an educational film? I don't see any documentaries that are some of the highest grossing films of all time.

Some books can just mean so much more than actors and visual illusions.
They're written in the medium of thought

I consider books a more pure form of storytelling.

Anything can happen in a book. They don't have all the constraints of movies.

At 5/5/13 02:59 PM, Darthdenim wrote: I consider books a more pure form of storytelling.

Anything can happen in a book. They don't have all the constraints of movies.

Actually, you could argue that films have less constraints, because they involve multiple senses, and can still make use of the imagination.

But in practice, movies are usually just an hour and a half, beginning-middle-end, cookie cutter money maker.

At 5/5/13 02:54 PM, 372 wrote: Some books can just mean so much more than actors and visual illusions.
They're written in the medium of thought

And there are encyclopedias. The best of both worlds.

It must be embarassing to be this retarded.

I agree. I don't really understand the logic behind the statements those cartoons are making either. I suppose it's good for your personal development to expose yourself to (different types of) art, but I don't see why reading a good book would be any more intellectually rewarding than watching a good film or even playing a video game.

At 5/5/13 02:59 PM, Darthdenim wrote: I consider books a more pure form of storytelling.

Anything can happen in a book. They don't have all the constraints of movies.

I'm not sure if I agree with that. Sure, there are things in books that don't translate well to the big screen, but it's the other way around as well. Also, there are plenty of books that were deemed "unfilmable" once (like LOTR and Watchmen), which eventually got a fine translation to the cinemas. Lastly, they can do about anything with CGI effects nowadays.

So, I don't think films are any more constrained than books are.

I hate when people think they're superior for not reading books.

At 5/5/13 03:42 PM, T3XT wrote: I hate when people think they're superior for not reading books.

wat

I know this is completely illogical but I just like to own material things. I'd rather own a hard copy of a book than get a ebook. My uncle got me a Kindle Fire last year and I haven't used it in months.

I'm read select books myself and I mostly agree.

I always avoid the top seller BS, self help BS, and fiction. I also hate the elitism that suggest that animation, film and music aren't admirable and fine art forms and ways to tell a story.

At 5/5/13 03:06 PM, Scintillating wrote:

At 5/5/13 02:59 PM, Darthdenim wrote: I consider books a more pure form of storytelling.

Anything can happen in a book. They don't have all the constraints of movies.

Actually, you could argue that films have less constraints, because they involve multiple senses, and can still make use of the imagination.

But in practice, movies are usually just an hour and a half, beginning-middle-end, cookie cutter money maker.

That's kind of what I meant. Novelist are usually able to tell the exact story they want to tell.

Movies usually have many influences that wind up muddling the final product.

Like how Whedon's idea for the Buffy the Vampire Slayer film was butchered by the studio.

I get some of your points, but overall it's a proven fact that your vocab increases by a good amount depending on what, and how much you read daily; and it can be anything from newspapers to blogs

Movies and TV spoon feed you things it wants to tell you, you think for YOURSELF when you read what YOU choose to

I love reading, but I have to agree some books rot your mind more than watching daytime TV on a constant basis. The amount of shit chick-flick style books out there is enough to knock any sane persons IQ down a hundred points.

Books are nice to read; they get the imagination flowing. I don't see how they're any better for your brain or whatever than movies or games are though. That seems to have more to do with the stigma surrounding technology than it does with actual results.

Every one of my coworkers has read 50 shades of gray and I just absolutely refuse to. One of them tried to talk to me about the plot, basically that the guy is fine as hell and rich and well endowed but he can't get women kinky enough in real life so he has to look online.
Yeah because rich, hot, well endowed dudes can't ever find a woman!

Stupid ass premise for a book.

So a lot of them are automatically assuming I am a "prude" for not reading it. I want to tell them there is no way there is anything in that book I am unaware of or know about, as I am from the internet.

I read a ton, but on my phone, digital downloads. And I read really boring stuff, I won't lie. I read a lot of history, a lot of science (weather), a lot about health. If I do read fiction, I like dystopian fiction, the darker stuff. And I read comics and feel they are underrated. I am a Neil Gaiman fan and I adore Frank Miller.

i want 2 be dumb + proud

It's a little off-topic, but books are no longer those "magic fountains of knowledge" they used to be, and most blockbuster movies are no longer considered "low-bro entertainment", just compare a movie like Inception and a book like 50 Shades of Grey to prove my point.