Try them...

a blogger claims she's interested in what a certain writer wants to say, yet she abstains from at least browsing the links the writer includes. she argues that although the writer agrees with the articles he cites and links, the articles themselves are not his thoughts. the writer agrees that these articles are, to a certain extent, distinct from his own thoughts. but then again, to consistently read a particular writer's works, one does not preclude the notion that one is also interested in the development of the writer's thoughts. this would entail a study of the origins of the thoughts of the writer from the texts that have aroused his feelings and compelled him to write his own.

an honest scholar of jose rizal's thoughts for example would confess that the national hero did not come up with his thoughts and writings in a vacuum. rizal was influenced by the popular literature of his time, particularly works of european nationalists and secularists. kantian philosophy, for example, is strikingly evident in rizal's works. familiarity therefore of kant and other ideas that influenced rizal does not impair the value of his works, but it puts them into context and helps one to appreciate rizal further in the light of these works.

so the reader should do the same if she is interested to understand a writer's thoughts. to read his work would entail accompanying him in a journey, to familiarize one's self to the context, backgrond and framework from which the writer derives his thoughts. to dismiss them simply because they are not the words of the writer, the reader increases the chances of not arriving at the same point as the writer. for that, the reader must immerse herself in the links since the writer may have considered interpreting the originally text according to his own words a watering down of the powerful testimony of the original text.

as for the value of the contents of the articles, the subject is debatable, but the reader must know by now, that the writer is quite critical of the media. he is fully aware of the sensationalism and inaccuracies that many media organizations present as fair and balanced reporting of the facts. he therefore tries to gather his links from what he considers reliable sources, and tries to discern whether such reports are credible. but then again, citing the failures of the media simply ignores the fact that not all links refer to news items. again, the value of the contents of these remains subject to debate, one however should not dismiss anything so easily, especially when the writer tends to be critically at every level.

by now the reader must also understand that the writer simply wants to elicit debate, discussion and reflection from his readers. he considers this as the main purpose of his blog. once again he is happy and thankful that you have responded kindly to his invitation, but he must admit that he was surprised at the form in which this response took shape. he foresees livelier discussion with you gentle reader soon.