
XENIA, OHIO — The familiar click and clack of typewriter keys will have a new home in Greene County beginning Saturday, Aug. 22, from 2 to 4 p.m., when the 21st Century Typewriters Club holds its first monthly gathering at the Xenia Community Library, 76 E. Market Street. The event is free and open to the public, but registration is encouraged.
Anyone interested in typewriters will enjoy this program. Whether they are longtime collectors, writers who still use the machines regularly, people who have recently rediscovered an old family typewriter, or those who simply want to learn more about them.
The idea behind the 21st Century Typewriters Club is not simply to look backward at typewriters as antiques, but to explore why people continue to use, collect and enjoy them well into the digital age.
Participants are encouraged to bring a typewriter if they have one, along with questions, stories and an interest in exploring the history, continued use and future of the machines in an increasingly digital world. Owning a typewriter is not required to attend.
The new club is being organized by local writer, journalist and longtime typewriter enthusiast Gery L. Deer, who has presented several typewriter-related programs through the Greene County Public Library.
“Typewriters have certainly become collectible, but they’re not just museum pieces,” Deer said. “People, like me, are still writing with them, restoring them, learning about them and, in many cases, discovering them for the first time. This club will provide somewhere local to get together and share that interest.”
“Faster isn’t always better,” Deer is fond of saying, and he’s not alone. The so-called “typewriter revolution” inspired a dedicated subculture of typewriter enthusiasts numbering in the tens of thousands worldwide, including prominent celebrities such as actor Tom Hanks.

The first hour of Saturday’s inaugural meeting will be devoted to an informal discussion about the club itself, including what participants would like to see from future gatherings and how the organization might develop over time. Each monthly meeting is also expected to include discussion of a topic related to typewriter history, use, collecting, writing or preservation.
During the second hour, participants will turn from talking about typewriters to actually using them with a mini “type-in.” Type-ins are informal gatherings where people bring manual and electric typewriters, set them up together and spend time writing, trying different machines and comparing the sometimes dramatically different feel and personality of various models.
Unlike a computer or smartphone, a typewriter offers no notifications, automatic corrections or electronic distractions. For many modern users, that limitation is part of the appeal.
The club is intended to provide a place for experienced collectors and complete newcomers alike. Participants can compare machines, ask questions about operation and maintenance, share information about typewriter history, and learn from others in the group.
Future meetings will continue to combine conversation and hands-on activities, with the club’s direction shaped in part by those who participate. The inaugural meeting of the 21st Century Typewriters Club will be held Saturday, Aug. 22, from 2 to 4 p.m. at the Xenia Community Library. Attendance is free.
Those attending are welcome to bring their own typewriters, but a machine is not necessary to participate. Anyone with an interest in the history, mechanics, writing experience or future of typewriters is welcome.
Additional information about the program is available through the Greene County Public Library event calendar. The official library listing is here: 21st Century Typewriters Club with Gery Deer.
The event is sponsored by GLD Communications.











Civil Discourse, communication, Conversation, Critical Thinking, debate, Deer In Headlines, Family Relationships, Gery Deer, Human Nature, opinion, Political Polarization, politics, Social Commentary, Understanding
Debate is not conversation
In Education, Opinion, Politics, psychology, Uncategorized on June 14, 2026 at 9:08 amDeer In Headlines
By Gery Deer
I have family members I can’t talk politics with. That’s not because they’re bad people, ignorant people, or people I don’t care about. They’re some of the smartest, hardest-working, most generous people I know. We’d help each other move furniture, fix a flat tire, or get through a family crisis without hesitation. But the moment politics enters the conversation, everything changes.
What makes it frustrating is that I’m usually not trying to change anyone’s mind. As a journalist, I’ve spent much of my career talking with people whose backgrounds, values, and beliefs differ from my own. I’ve interviewed politicians, activists, business owners, lobbyists, farmers, teachers, veterans, and everyday citizens from every imaginable perspective. My job was never to win an argument. It was to understand why people believed what they believed.
Unfortunately, that’s not always what happens around the dinner table anymore. Some people have become so hard-wired into their political identities that every discussion feels like a loyalty test. Questioning a policy suddenly becomes an attack on the tribe – or cult, depending on how you see it. Asking for clarification becomes immediate proof that you’re uninformed. Offering a different perspective becomes evidence that you’ve been misled. The conversation stops being about ideas and starts becoming about defending a team.
That’s the difference between a conversation and a debate. A conversation is an exploration. The goal is understanding. A debate is a competition. The goal is victory. Both have value in the right setting, but problems arise when people think they’re having one while participating in the other.
I’ve watched it happen countless times. Someone mentions a news story. Another person responds with an opinion. A third person offers a different interpretation. At first, everyone is simply exchanging thoughts. Then someone decides that understanding isn’t enough. Someone begins trying to prove another person wrong. The shift is subtle but unmistakable.
Questions disappear. Statements become sharper. Opinions are tossed in as facts, lobbed like verbal hand grenades. Listening becomes, well, nonexistent. Instead of learning something, people prepare rebuttals. Rather than consider another perspective, they look for weaknesses to exploit. The discussion has transformed from a conversation into a debate.
If no one recognizes what’s happening, the debate quickly deteriorates into an argument. That’s when voices rise, and interruptions begin. People assign motives rather than address ideas. You’ve probably heard the phrases before. “You only think that because…” or “You’re just saying that because…” Once those words enter the discussion, the original topic has pretty much vanished. The focus becomes defending pride, identity, and ego.
The irony is that arguments rarely – more like never – change minds but usually accomplish the opposite. The harder people push, the more firmly others cling to their existing beliefs. Nobody wants to feel cornered, embarrassed, or dismissed. Even when valid points are being made, they’re lost beneath the emotional weight of the conflict.
Some of the best conversations I’ve ever had ended with complete disagreement. Nobody switched sides. Nobody waved a white flag. Nobody declared victory. Yet both people walked away with a better understanding of how the other saw the world. That’s not failure. That’s success.
Understanding doesn’t require agreement. It doesn’t require compromise on deeply held principles. It simply requires that we recognize that intelligent people can reach different conclusions based on their experience. When we approach disagreement with curiosity instead of combativeness, we create opportunities to learn something new.
Communities depend on that ability. Families depend on it even more. If every disagreement becomes a contest, relationships eventually become casualties. People stop talking. Gatherings become tense. Entire subjects become off-limits because nobody trusts anyone else to listen.
The older I get, the less interested I am in winning debates. Winning is temporary. The satisfaction lasts about as long as the next disagreement. Understanding, however, has lasting value. It strengthens relationships, broadens perspectives, and creates opportunities for cooperation even when agreement remains impossible.
Disagreement is healthy. But what we need are fewer debates disguised as conversations. One builds bridges while the other draws battle lines. In the end, conversations create the possibility of resolution because people are working toward understanding. Debates create division because people are working toward victory. That’s a difference worth remembering.