<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>A few days ago, someone posted archives from about ten years ago. I read through a few of them to remind myself what we were talking about in those days. Did anyone else here do that? That was interesting, but I noticed something that jumped out at me. Comparing the ExI-list to ten years ago, it is remarkable how long the typical posts were. Now we are so hit-and-run. Then we had a longer attention span.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I was reminded of this when I read an offhanded comment in a movie review, an animated feature called “Mars Needs Moms.” A positive feature of the movie according to this reviewer is that it is short: <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:14.25pt;background:white'><span lang=EN style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>…and with its splendid use of computer-generated motion-capture animation and 3-D effects, the movie is also visually magnificent -- modestly so. Plus, it's half the length of "Avatar."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/11/review.mars.needs.moms/index.html?hpt=Sbin">http://www.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/11/review.mars.needs.moms/index.html?hpt=Sbin</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>So it isn’t only me. We want our media-streams to say it, make it short and to the point, and on to the next thing. Apparently Avatar could be improved by breaking it into two segments, charging for tickets twice, each half the length?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I have seen this phenomenon in so many places, including magazines. I have 26 year old bike magazines reviewing my bike when it was new. I was astounded at how long it went on and on, for several pages. Today, even brainy magazines such as Scientific American and Astronomy have short crackly articles.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>spike<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>