"We all read for entertainment, no matter how old we are, but kids also read to find out how the world works. They pay keen attention, they argue back."

Don't adults do this when they read? After reading the whole piece, I better understand that this is part of Cory's argument about how adolescence works in the brain (a "series of brave, irreversible decisions" and an important lack of risk-assessment capabilities), but I am still concerned by the assumption that reading "to find out how the world works" is somehow the exclusive purview of children. Perhaps we should ask: If adults don't read to find out how the world works, if they don't pay keen attention and argue back, why don't they? Is it because we (or writers) assume they don't? It's all well and good to get children/adolescents hooked on the drug/faith/adventure of reading, but why aren't they staying hooked? Because generally, they aren't.

'Twould appear I've been obsoleted by my own inability to research properly. The OED lists the first use of "obsolete" as a verb in 1640.

Thanks, Antinous, for reminding me to check my facts before posting willy-nilly to the internet.

(I remain firm on the retardation of evolution.)

It is entirely possible that I am linguistically out of touch, but when did "obsolete" become a verb? Yes, yes, language is a living thing and should be allowed to evolve. I, however, am in favor of a somewhat retarded evolution. If we were to allow language's evolution to progress at the current desired rate, it would give many, many people an excuse to throw all the rules out the window. It might also result in English becoming simply txt.

l8r,
sh

broken?