Kindle vs Books!

[FiF]

marcosgt said:

Silver said:

I absolutely agree with you. BUT. For practical purposes, a Kindle wins hands down. And I'm saying that as a lifelong bibliophile. The fact of the matter is that I read a lot and I bought a lot of books. I could not continue to do that without either my house becoming a dusty labyrinth of paperbacks piled or getting divorced. The Kindle seemed the easier option.

Surely a kindle is more akin to a paid lending library?

You can read the book, but you never actually own it and can get it again if you like.

M

I'll say it again, I've been impressed with the county e-library, introduced me to some authors I probably would not have borrowed in paper version.

Reason is it's so easy to borrow, have a read and then return if not suitable, without the trek, parking, having to listen to a middles aged woman trying and failing to control unruly feral sprogs who are seemingly only in for a warm plus a play on the computers and surfing for tit pics while swearing at said middle aged librarian.

Plus for the free online stuff, worth downloading classics and having a go. Would I pay to own Middlemarch? Probably not tbh.

[Pistom]

Only time will tell if e-readers are a fad or here to stay.

I like my Nook for a number of reasons, the main one being that I don't like the tactile experience of a book.

I rarely read the same book twice and spending money on say a novel, to me is akin to going to the cinema ie it's money gone on entertaining me at that time.

E-readers like the Nook are far better than say a colour tablet for the purpose book reading.

[LordGrover]

HTRB!

[FiF]

LordGrover said:

HTRB!

High Temperature Reverse Bias

Well that was random.