posted
interesting, makes good points, but who has time to do everything suggested. I know I wouldn't be able to write a blog, keep a scrapbook, keep journal, read a new magazine, podcast etc.
Posts: 130 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't completely agree with the interesting article. I don't read other blogs by people I don't know, nor do I scavenge the web for people interesting people. Most of the time, I'll meet them at school or just around. I don't think of a "blogger" as "intersting".
"You’ve got to find what’s interesting in everything, you’ve got to be good at noticing things, you’ve got to be good at listening. If you find people (and things) interesting, they’ll find you interesting."
I do agree with that. I just feel that finding interesting people on the internet is far less productive then finding them in real life.
Posts: 213 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say a better way to be interesting is to go out and do things. People who are "interesting" because they spend all their time online blogging, putting up photos, and reading other blogs are much less interesting than people who go hiking, travel, participate in sports, enter game tournaments, learn to cook, go to a political convention, etc.
Get out and do things, so you have first hand experiences to share with people
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't equate 'blogger' with 'interesting' either. In fact, if that person's blogs is like most people's, there's a good chance they have very few 'interesting' things to do with their time.
Like JumboWumbo, I mainly just agree with this sentiment:
quote:The way to be interesting is to be interested.
and posted the article as a sort of curiosity.
MightyCow, I totally agree.
No one can really tell you how to make the most out of your life (or even how to work most efficiently).
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
