« From San Juan, With Love | Main | And Now Auriga »

Comments

Rex

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!)

Alexis

So why won't you shut up about Twitter?

Rex

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.

chuck

I do not Twitter.

I guess Flickr is my Twitter. (What the hell has happened to our language???)

s4xton

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.

taulpaul

Rex just described a man's ideal relationship with a gal. Ala Maui Fever.

Rex

Wow, that's actually sorta true. My relationship to Twitter is exactly like my relationship to girls.

taulpaul

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."

Rex

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.

Kenneth Udut

Nothing wrong with Twitter - well, probably plenty wrong, but I'm already hooked. Seriously hooked.

http://twitter.pbwiki.com - Twitter Fan Wiki,

Rex

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:

Rex Sorgatz, who founded the site MNSpeak and is now Innovations Director for msnbc.com in Seattle, doesn't think Gartner's data portends the end for blogs.

"I'm honestly no blog triumphalist, but when did 100 million people involved in contributory media become a disappointment?" he said.

Sorgatz thinks that the definition of "blog" is changing: "There's something happening on MySpace that is blog-like, but not exactly blogging. The same goes with Twitter, where people are sort of insta-blogging. I can imagine a near future in which blogging completely disappears because it has been replaced with more effective forms of communication that we haven't even seen yet."

See, I won't shut the fuck up about Twitter!

Dave

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.

Dave

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.

Alexis

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.

Dave

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.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter
    Bookmark and Share
    Blog powered by Typepad