Debate Why new media can not replace the epistle

The first step to delineate some things:

Scope: the new media just appeared later than the epistles, in fact, from the functional point of view can be completely, of course, does not rule out than extreme conditions, such as network paralysis, or special requirements. These are external hard conditions to decide, do not do the main discussion.

Definition: a clear definition can be, do not have to key words, the effort wasted on the definition of the comparison, it is really just a waste.

The second part of the analysis of ideas:

We say that A can not replace B, in fact, there are only two points, the first is indeed the effect of A is not as good as B (functional utility point of view), and the second even if the B has in addition to its own due to the function of the other things (added value), and A does not have.

Third, back to the argument:

Back to the argument. The overlap between the two is "conveying information", and we are discussing whether this can be replaced. From a functional point of view, new media can completely replace letters, so the "can't" in our position is not the kind of "can't" in the sense of "can't" (or else we can let bands just burn records without having to play live concerts), but rather the kind of "can't" in the sense of "can't" in the sense of "can't" in the sense of "can't". It's the added value.

This brings us to the "added value" of the letter. Added value is nothing more than what you bring to the reader (what you don't send, what you don't communicate). I don't think I need to go into the details of this.

After saying added value also have to say why added value is important, some "added" no "value", this combined with the times.

Such a letter, is a unique value-added things, even from the functional point of view, it can not even compare with the new media, but its added value makes it still irreplaceable.