| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"gravity" |
| Date: |
30 May 2006 01:14:13 AM |
| Object: |
rereading books |
i may be wierd, but i reread books. i read a book on the Riemann
Hypothesis. it contained some light math, so i am reading it for a 3rd
time, to get all the concepts. it seems that rereading a good book, is
probably more productive than reading a bad book even one time.
many books i simply skim. i read pop science, and much of the material is
redundant.
Gravity
.
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: rereading books |
30 May 2006 01:16:39 AM |
|
|
"gravity" <gravityzrainbow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:447be309$0$15296$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
i may be wierd, but i reread books. i read a book on the Riemann
Hypothesis. it contained some light math, so i am reading it for a 3rd
time, to get all the concepts. it seems that rereading a good book, is
probably more productive than reading a bad book even one time.
many books i simply skim. i read pop science, and much of the material is
redundant.
Gravity
i read Winnie The Pooh twice
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: rereading books |
30 May 2006 02:07:51 AM |
|
|
In message <447be309$0$15296$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
gravity <gravityzrainbow@yahoo.com> writes
i may be wierd, but i reread books. i read a book on the Riemann
Hypothesis. it contained some light math, so i am reading it for a 3rd
time, to get all the concepts. it seems that rereading a good book, is
probably more productive than reading a bad book even one time.
many books i simply skim. i read pop science, and much of the material is
redundant.
IMO, if a book's worth reading the first time, it should be worth
reading twice.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "elegy" |
|
| Title: Re: rereading books |
30 May 2006 08:13:24 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 May 2006 01:14:13 -0500, "gravity"
<gravityzrainbow@yahoo.com> wrote:
i may be wierd, but i reread books. i read a book on the Riemann
Hypothesis. it contained some light math, so i am reading it for a 3rd
time, to get all the concepts. it seems that rereading a good book, is
probably more productive than reading a bad book even one time.
many books i simply skim. i read pop science, and much of the material is
redundant.
i reread books pretty regularly, too. though i read them because
they're comfortable and reliable, like old friends.
--
read banned books.
http://shattering.org
x-no-archive: yes in headers
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: rereading books |
30 May 2006 08:16:10 PM |
|
|
"elegy" <elegy@DOGPOOPshattering.org> wrote in message
news:ebrp72din3oog84hvpoeg9q3vcs6fa31kp@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 May 2006 01:14:13 -0500, "gravity"
<gravityzrainbow@yahoo.com> wrote:
i may be wierd, but i reread books. i read a book on the Riemann
Hypothesis. it contained some light math, so i am reading it for a 3rd
time, to get all the concepts. it seems that rereading a good book, is
probably more productive than reading a bad book even one time.
many books i simply skim. i read pop science, and much of the material
is
redundant.
i reread books pretty regularly, too. though i read them because
they're comfortable and reliable, like old friends.
--
read banned books.
http://shattering.org
x-no-archive: yes in headers
i never read anything
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
