Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
666 is not the number of The Beast, this is:
Wecome to The Dark Side
- Inchy
- Falkirk, Central Scotland, United Kingdom
- Believe me when I tell you that The Force is not strong in me. I'm Gordon, and life here in sunny Scotland hasn't really worked out like I imagined it would. I've never been a Formula 1 champion, I've never flown in the Space Shuttle, I've yet to be asked to be a fighter pilot, and I've so far failed to be the filling in a Famke Janssen/Julianne Moore sandwich. I was kinda hoping for more. Still living the dream though. As I get older, I'm finding that literally EVERYTHING annoys me nowadays, EVERYTHING was better when I was younger, and EVERYONE who is under the age of 21 should be in the Army or in bed by 9pm. If it doesn't involve Scotland, current affairs, science, technology, music, tv, films, motorbikes, mountainbikes, girls, comedy, food, drink, more drink, or world news, then I'm just not interested. By the way, I'm not a big Star Wars fan, sorry.
since august 2008
Top Referring Sites
Get Your Feed Your Way
23 comments:
While I agree with your sentiment, I can't help but notice you have posted a Twitter hash tag. As somebody who has publicly stated "I can't see the point of Twitter", perhaps you could explain yourself?
Jaggy, it's called irony, I'll explain it to you on Sunday if you like.
Yes, I absolutely find twitter to be pointless, and it's not the case, like Beyonce, that I just "don't get it" as that would imply that there is some vital information, some spark that would show me what I'm missing. For example, I don't really care that Demi Moore woke up to hear her husband talking on the phone or that Stephen Fry is eating a brasil nut or indeed that you found the best descriptive term for the rain two days ago to be "lashing". Quite why people are fixated on this pointless information escapes me . . . gladly.
The only place I see Irony is in the fact you used a Twitter hash tag without realising it.
I'm not here to defend Twitter, although I will question your points.
As somebody who is more into hero worship than any other grown-up that I have come across, you would appear to be perfect for Twitter, going by the amount of sportsmen etc that you are a "fan" of on Facebook. Similarly, I couldn't give a monkey's what Demi Moore and Stephen Fry etc are eating.
However, I am interested in topical news and discussion on current events and as you have pointed out yourself, the whole point of blogging is to get a discussion going. Not everything everybody says in life is a pearl of wisdom, or razor sharp wit, but you hang on in there, listen to what people have to say and occasionally, a little nugget of gold appears. Communication and interaction are the goal, some achieve it better than others, but then you have the choice to listen to whoever you choose. Surely this is a similar premise to blogging, which you seem to heartily endorse.
Explain to me Inchy, what exactly is the difference between the little status updates that you frequently post to Facebook, on such riveting topics such as "standing in line at ASDA, doing overtime (or not) at the weekend, and what music you happen to be listening to at the time" and what other people post to Twitter. Not a lot I would guess. But seeing as you are institutionally dismissive of any new technology that you do not understand it will be some time yet before you fully understand the basis of what some call web 2.0, and others, interactivity.
Even your "Heros" Bill Shatner, Chris Boardman and Lance Armstrong understand Twitter. Start slow Inchy, try BBC news, familiar people, or something, and you might get the hang of it. But then, the choice is yours, to dismiss the second fastest growing website on the internet, the one that Facebook is so desperately trying to emulate, or to realise that Twitter is more than just about what Stephen Fry is eating. Basing your opinion of Twitter on that is like basing your opinion of Blogger on the content of a Mommy blog from the deep South of America.
So what you're telling me is that 99% of twitter is shite, but, at it's heart, there's 1% of piercing insight, of relevant topical discussion, of deep-thinking gravitas?
"Me see a shooting star!"
Discuss.
I rest my case.
And as for Facebook, the difference there couldn't be clearer. Everyone who is in my friend list on Facebook is just that, an actual friend, someone who WOULD lend me £20 if I asked for it, even you Jagster.
Am I missing something?
Is there some hidden facet to twitter that I should know about?
Some hidden meaning that would show me the error of my ways and point out why I should be interested in what Abdul is doing in downtown Mosul, or Peggy Sue is eating in sleepy Kentucky, or even what Jaggy likes to call rain in Motherwell?
I'm not attacking you, by the way, I'm merely pointing out the utter pointlessness of it all.
Again you're choosing to ignore the similarity between blogging (that you do), Facebook (that you do) and Twitter.
I'll answer your points, even if you choose to ignore mine.
99%? Your statistics, not mine. I agree that a high degree of what "people" talk about on Twitter is what I would call shite. But then, I would say the same if I listened into random telephone conversations, It's all about who you listen to, and on Twitter at least, I have full control over that. I regularly weed out the boring and irrelevant from my feed so I'm left with as close to "interesting" as I'm likely to get.
And on your point about your "Friends" on Facebook, I doubt whether Les or Christina would fall into that bracket.
So yes, you are missing something. You're missing the similarity with what you already do, to something that you don't understand but are will to dismiss.
If you want to go into pointlessness then there's a whole bunch of shit out there on the interwebs about all sorts of crap that is totally pointless, and not just my opinion on the Perseids, or people talking to you in the queue at Asda.
Jaggy, Jaggy, Jaggy (exasperated sigh).
Firstly, can I take this opportunity to thank you for hijacking this post and turning it away from a serious issue (in my opinion) and into an extremely trivial one.
Secondly, "I regularly weed out the boring and irrelevant from my feed so I'm left with as close to 'interesting' as I'm likely to get."
Oh really?
Lets just take a wee peek at the twitterers that you follow, in order to do this I've had to create a twitter account. This will clearly be it's one and only use.
I've picked three random twits, or whatever the hell you call them, from people you follow who aren't famous, which is difficult seeing as most of the people you follow seem to celebrities of one type or another, something you mocked me for.
In no particular order:
"In the pub drinking Budvar. Thursday nights were made for this."
"Bought a Samsung 22" LCD monitor today to replace my aging 16" CRT that was threatening to die. Its so awesome. Looks huge!"
"sckorchio!"
Hmmm . . . as you say "interesting" indeed. I can feel the deep philosophical debate brewing inside me as we speak.
You seem to think that following the Facebook pages of three world class sportsmen that I admire, one of whom I know personally, is somehow foolish, yet unless I'm very much mistaken isn't Ian Poulter a famous golfer, or were you both in the Gas Board together?
Thirdly, please don't mistake apathy for ignorance. I'm very much aware of how micro-blogging (or diet-blog as they should really call it) works. It's for people who can't or wont use a proper blog or a forum, the places that actual, honest-to-goodness debates take place.
Once again, I'm in no way 'having a go' at you personally, and if twitter floats your boat then you knock yourself out, but I'm just not in a headspace where I think that random strangers need or want to know what I'll be having for breakfast and I sure as shit don't want a debate over it.
Now, your thoughts on the merits of the NHS please.
Sorry, I didn't realise this post had a serious comment to make, all I saw was a ripped off picture and no comment whatsoever.
It's not ripped off, I had to make it.
Ah, you've changed the title, old one not working for you?
No, it's just that some people, the hard of thinking, were a bit confused and didn't realise it was a scathing attack on the American healthcare system.
See now it just looks like you're having a "scathing" attack on the NHS, using Irony correctly for once.
As I said, easily confused.
Yes, you are.
If I may butt in...
I find the earlier remark "Stephen Fry is eating a brasil nut" most amusing, phnarr phnarr
You know Jim, I didn't even see the double entendre. I must be getting slack in my old age!
And it must be old age Inchy that I am still laughing at the phrase an hour later.
Or swine flu, Jim.
Be sure to wash your hands before you leave.
What - you know William Shatner personally- fuckin brilliant!!!
Do you think he wants to go to Glentress with us? Cause then he could beam us to the top!! boom boom.
The American health service - Its not very good - Obama wants to fix it - nobody in congress wants to help him as it is only the poor that are suffering - congress have other things to worry about like capatalism self destructing.
Anyone want to talk about Quantitive Easing or the reducing yield of the gilt market? If so I'm your bus.
By all means, downhilldad, enlighten us about the reduction of gilt market yield. You are a banker after all, and yes, I do mean both connotations of that word.
Call me a cynic but I bet Daniel Hannan got a nice juicy kickback from a huge American Health Insurance company...
Steve, you old cynic, you!
Totally off the track, the racing cars song of the same title is a great song.
Agreed.
Post a Comment