For the "What it's worth department." How about $2.95 a pop. -- Cracker Squire's Fables, Part II
It should be obvious that I enjoy reading, much as I enjoy cake. Being able to share what I read with others via this blog is, you guessed it, icing on the cake.
When -- as is most often the case -- something I have just read is the basis of a post, I either just discuss the source, paraphrase it, post excerpts, or sometimes post the entire article or column, in all events always noting my source, usually with a link.
Generally the basis of my decision to post excerpts or the whole article or column is based on what I think I would have liked to have read, thinking this is what most of you would like to be exposed, without having to have read "the whole thing." And of course with the link, if you want to read more, you can.
Which brings me to the point of this post. I have subscribed to The Wall Street Journal forever and a day. Shortly after Mr. Gore invented the internet, I began subscribing to the online edition, which you can do a lot cheaper if you take the hard copy.
Just as you can email posts from this blog to friends, you could do so with The Wall Street Journal a long time before this technology became so common. I would email articles to friends and also to myself (as a way of saving them for future reference). (Even as a subscriber, after 30 days to pay to have an article retrieved. Unless what? Come on, we all have heard of Google.)
Of course you do the same if you just copy and paste the link and email it to yourself don't you, or do you.
The answer is generally yes, but not with The New York Times.
This weekend I went to review a New Times Times article that I had just copied and pasted the website and emailed to myself, and I learned that the website has less than a week's hour glass. You get the beginning of the article, with a note that the full articles, sans photos, can be obtained for $2.95 per article.
Since the links in posts on this blog are nothing but websites, you will experience the same thing on older New York Times articles.
Do I have a problem with this? Heck no. I don't have to pay to read The New York Times online, and no doubt will need to go back and purchase some of its priceless pieces in the future (unless I posted the whole thing on my blog of course).
I have not noticed any of my other regular reads doing this; certainly I know The Washington Post does not. But you know how things happen in America. They begin in California, then to New York, and then Main Street U.S.A.
The morale of this Cracker Squire's Fable: If you want The New York Times article when need it, you had better copy and paste the whole thing and email it to yourself.
A corollary to such fable, and even to this entire post. Did I sense someone thinking that anyone who has to worry about such things needs to get a life?
When -- as is most often the case -- something I have just read is the basis of a post, I either just discuss the source, paraphrase it, post excerpts, or sometimes post the entire article or column, in all events always noting my source, usually with a link.
Generally the basis of my decision to post excerpts or the whole article or column is based on what I think I would have liked to have read, thinking this is what most of you would like to be exposed, without having to have read "the whole thing." And of course with the link, if you want to read more, you can.
Which brings me to the point of this post. I have subscribed to The Wall Street Journal forever and a day. Shortly after Mr. Gore invented the internet, I began subscribing to the online edition, which you can do a lot cheaper if you take the hard copy.
Just as you can email posts from this blog to friends, you could do so with The Wall Street Journal a long time before this technology became so common. I would email articles to friends and also to myself (as a way of saving them for future reference). (Even as a subscriber, after 30 days to pay to have an article retrieved. Unless what? Come on, we all have heard of Google.)
Of course you do the same if you just copy and paste the link and email it to yourself don't you, or do you.
The answer is generally yes, but not with The New York Times.
This weekend I went to review a New Times Times article that I had just copied and pasted the website and emailed to myself, and I learned that the website has less than a week's hour glass. You get the beginning of the article, with a note that the full articles, sans photos, can be obtained for $2.95 per article.
Since the links in posts on this blog are nothing but websites, you will experience the same thing on older New York Times articles.
Do I have a problem with this? Heck no. I don't have to pay to read The New York Times online, and no doubt will need to go back and purchase some of its priceless pieces in the future (unless I posted the whole thing on my blog of course).
I have not noticed any of my other regular reads doing this; certainly I know The Washington Post does not. But you know how things happen in America. They begin in California, then to New York, and then Main Street U.S.A.
The morale of this Cracker Squire's Fable: If you want The New York Times article when need it, you had better copy and paste the whole thing and email it to yourself.
A corollary to such fable, and even to this entire post. Did I sense someone thinking that anyone who has to worry about such things needs to get a life?
posted by Sid Cottingham | 10:41 PM
2 Comments:
Sid--try experimenting with the "e-mail this article" tool on the NY Times a little more. Ocasionally, I'll come across an article that I want to save for future reference, and they allow me to send the whole thing to myself (you can also choose to send an extract). The thing I don't like about cutting and pasting is that sometimes the formatting gets messed up.
And let me make sure I follow you on this Joseph. I am very familiar with emailing an article to myself, and this is what I say I do on my wsj articles. On the nyt, if you email the article to yourself, you have it for good. This would be the question.
I too do not like cut and pasting articles. Besides the different fonts, you get the junk stuff unless you do in different segments.
Thanks for the comment, and Happy Thanksgiving.
Post a Comment
<< Home