Sweet, I just logged into Typepad and noticed that Blogumentary is the most recent Featured Blog. You've made it, Chuck. You've made it.
So who all Twitters? It's sort of a useless application, but fun nonetheless. What boggles my mind is that, of 23 people who follow my Twitter updates, only 6 of them are people I actually know. Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that 17 perfect strangers (some even in other countries) give a God damn about what I'm doing at random moments throughout the day? I just think that's weird. I stuck the Twitter badge on my Myspace page ("but isn't it 'Ourspace?'") because that seems like a good place for it.
I don't know what's going on in the music section of my brain lately, but every time I hear POS's "Bleeding Hearts Club (MPLS Chapter)" I get JT's "My Love" stuck in my head almost immediately afterward. I wonder what that's about.
So Amber recently informed me that my favorite astrologists, Starsky + Cox, now post daily horoscopes at Allure.com. (These are the people that made a believer out of me with the inimitable Sextrology, a guide which has become so essential to me and to my friends that we simply refer to it as "The Book".) This is sweet news, since I was paying $2.00 a week or something like that to have my daily horoscope texted to my phone. I'd love to do a private session with Starsky + Cox sometime, but I just can't imagine spending $500.00 on it.
I'm getting married to Twitter. I won't shut up about it.
(I'm also behind the Condoleezza Rice twitter account, which was a Featured Twitter account last week. Take that, Chuck!)
Posted by: Rex | January 22, 2007 at 02:00 AM
So why won't you shut up about Twitter?
Posted by: Alexis | January 22, 2007 at 02:19 AM
Where do I start? It's low-energy blogging. It's technology-enforced brevity. It's meta -- it reminds me to ask myself what exactly I'm doing. It's opt-in -- I know exactly what my friends are doing, no matter where they are. And most of all, it's ephemeral -- even though I'm in love with it, I fell like I could quit using it at any moment.
Posted by: Rex | January 22, 2007 at 03:46 AM
I do not Twitter.
I guess Flickr is my Twitter. (What the hell has happened to our language???)
Posted by: chuck | January 22, 2007 at 07:02 AM
I kinda shrug reading Rex's comment.
Yeah, maybe. Even if it's low-energy I still don't see the value outweighing the energy expended to use it. Then again I'm a Dodgeball fiend so maybe part of my problem is dividing time between two MSN's.
Posted by: s4xton | January 22, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Rex just described a man's ideal relationship with a gal. Ala Maui Fever.
Posted by: taulpaul | January 22, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Wow, that's actually sorta true. My relationship to Twitter is exactly like my relationship to girls.
Posted by: Rex | January 22, 2007 at 01:02 PM
I'll take Relationships out of Convenience for $500 Alex.
Twitter sounds like a word for female masturbatory carnage. "What did you do last night?" "Oh, I stayed home to watch a movie, eat some ice cream, and twittered myself a bit."
Posted by: taulpaul | January 22, 2007 at 01:07 PM
I've been pitching a version of Twitter that is solely for dating. It's called Twatter.
s4xton: I've been developing this idea that the ideology of Twitter is west coast whereas Dodgeball is east coast. It sorta makes sense.
Posted by: Rex | January 22, 2007 at 01:35 PM
Nothing wrong with Twitter - well, probably plenty wrong, but I'm already hooked. Seriously hooked.
http://twitter.pbwiki.com - Twitter Fan Wiki,
Posted by: Kenneth Udut | January 22, 2007 at 01:46 PM
Ooh, ooh. I even got some of my Twitter hype published in the Strib (not sure why startribune.com doesn't have the link). It starts with a reference to a Gartner study that said blogging activity is decreasing:
See, I won't shut the fuck up about Twitter!
Posted by: Rex | January 22, 2007 at 01:58 PM
I dunno. You haven't meet me yet, and I've been following your blog for years. In fact, you are one of about four blogs that I read at all, only one of whom is a friend I've meet in person.
I sometimes wonder if I even should meet you. We could go on one date, not hit it off, and my "Girl Friday" reading enjoyment would be forever tainted by one bad experience. :/
So, no. I don't think it's all that odd that strangers are reading your Twitter posts. I've got a few silent lurkers reading my MySpace blogs on a regular basis. It's part of the fun of opening up a vein and spilling your blood all over the Internets.
Posted by: Dave | January 22, 2007 at 03:09 PM
More about Astrology than you probably even want to know:
http://members.aol.com/garypos/Your_Sign.html
http://skepdic.com/astrolgy.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F08%2F17%2Fnstars17.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=84971
http://www.pac-c.org/astrology2.htm
Instead of giving $500 to an astrologer, give me $100 and I'll gladly make stuff up off the top of my head which will prove to be every bit as "accurate" and "useful." Quite a bargain, if you ask me.
Or just keep reading the bogus Horoscopes in Allure. It's a darn good magazine in its own right.
Posted by: Dave | January 22, 2007 at 03:41 PM
I was quite the skeptic once, too, but that book is so accurate you have to put it down, take a deep breath, and come back to it once you've gotten a grip on what you just read. Very fascinating, and far more in depth than what their daily reads can offer. Can't wait for the new book.
Posted by: Alexis | January 22, 2007 at 04:53 PM
Of course it's more "accurate" than most astrologers. By making it gender-specific, they have one extra piece of data to go on. When doing "cold readings" of people, the more information you know about them, the higher percentage of people are going to find them to be shockingly and mysteriously accurate.
The divination con is a manipulation of human perception which has been honed and perfected for thousands of years. You need to be aware that that's what you are up against, take a step back, and ask yourself, rationally, "what could it POSSIBLY be about the position of big rocks in distant space at the date and time I was recorded to have been born (which might not be perfectly correct) that could have any influence whatsoever on my personality or destiny?"
Then look at the mountain of research data which has proven, time and time again, that star signs are not predictive of anything when compared to an effective placebo. (For example, giving people somebody else's "reading" without telling them about the swap results in the exact same percentage of people saying that their readings were accurate.)
It is bunk. I'm not saying that to wreck your day. I'm saying it in the hopes that you never make an important decision in your life based on blind superstition, and end up regretting it.
Posted by: Dave | January 23, 2007 at 03:38 AM