<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Twitter: Do It</title>
	<atom:link href="http://melissablogs.com/2009/08/18/twitter-do-it/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://melissablogs.com/2009/08/18/twitter-do-it/</link>
	<description>Information Pollination</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:50:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: teqjack</title>
		<link>http://melissablogs.com/2009/08/18/twitter-do-it/comment-page-1/#comment-16235</link>
		<dc:creator>teqjack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:54:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.melissaclouthier.com/?p=14500#comment-16235</guid>
		<description>Twitter or equivalent? No thanks. 
 
The closest I have come was using a sister&#039;s computer to fix some problem she was having. She used one of the preceding-generation &quot;Instant messaging&quot; aps. Over the course of an hour, I was interrupted no less than fifteen times by messages, which is why it took an hour to do a fix that shoud have been at most fifteen minutes. (I would have blown the ap out of the water, but she also had &quot;parental&quot; software installed that would not let me get at even such basic tools as Task Manager!)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Twitter or equivalent? No thanks. </p>
<p>The closest I have come was using a sister&#8217;s computer to fix some problem she was having. She used one of the preceding-generation &#8220;Instant messaging&#8221; aps. Over the course of an hour, I was interrupted no less than fifteen times by messages, which is why it took an hour to do a fix that shoud have been at most fifteen minutes. (I would have blown the ap out of the water, but she also had &#8220;parental&#8221; software installed that would not let me get at even such basic tools as Task Manager!)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Annoying Old Guy</title>
		<link>http://melissablogs.com/2009/08/18/twitter-do-it/comment-page-1/#comment-16222</link>
		<dc:creator>Annoying Old Guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:06:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.melissaclouthier.com/?p=14500#comment-16222</guid>
		<description>&quot;This is why I Twitter: Imagine you could gather 200 of the smartest people&quot; and they never . shut . up. I wouldn&#039;t go as far as doc and Matt, but Twitter isn&#039;t opt in for information, but for people. And Sturgeon&#039;s Law applies to tweets just like everything else.

I have in fact tried Twitter. The one thing I noticed first is that it hands agency to someone else. *They* decide when to tweet. In contrast, with weblogs and an RSS reader, *I* decide when to read. I tried writing my own tweets but I found that for about the same energy it takes to tweet, I could just write a couple paragraph post and get a better result.

I am sure there are some people who can tweet successfully, and other who will find that interesting. But I don&#039;t think either are the majority. If you&#039;re one of them, great, I am glad you find a useful tool.

P.S. How is one supposed to find these &quot;200 smartest people&quot;? You? But you have a weblog which I can read, so why follow your tweets? If they don&#039;t have a weblog, how would I find them? Randomly subscribe and hope it&#039;s a smart person?

P.P.S. You should really make a note that DAG requires an email address to get the document.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;This is why I Twitter: Imagine you could gather 200 of the smartest people&#8221; and they never . shut . up. I wouldn&#8217;t go as far as doc and Matt, but Twitter isn&#8217;t opt in for information, but for people. And Sturgeon&#8217;s Law applies to tweets just like everything else.</p>
<p>I have in fact tried Twitter. The one thing I noticed first is that it hands agency to someone else. *They* decide when to tweet. In contrast, with weblogs and an RSS reader, *I* decide when to read. I tried writing my own tweets but I found that for about the same energy it takes to tweet, I could just write a couple paragraph post and get a better result.</p>
<p>I am sure there are some people who can tweet successfully, and other who will find that interesting. But I don&#8217;t think either are the majority. If you&#8217;re one of them, great, I am glad you find a useful tool.</p>
<p>P.S. How is one supposed to find these &#8220;200 smartest people&#8221;? You? But you have a weblog which I can read, so why follow your tweets? If they don&#8217;t have a weblog, how would I find them? Randomly subscribe and hope it&#8217;s a smart person?</p>
<p>P.P.S. You should really make a note that DAG requires an email address to get the document.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff</title>
		<link>http://melissablogs.com/2009/08/18/twitter-do-it/comment-page-1/#comment-16221</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:42:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.melissaclouthier.com/?p=14500#comment-16221</guid>
		<description>You still don&#039;t get it.  Many of us simply don&#039;t want yet another channel with a mind-numbingly low signal-to-noise ratio.

And I can only buy into your human search engine 1) if you always search within a narrow knowledge domain, 2) you have a significantly large Twitter following of people with expertise in that domain, 3) you don&#039;t need source citations, and 4) the info is so new/dynamic that it can&#039;t be found on the intertubes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You still don&#8217;t get it.  Many of us simply don&#8217;t want yet another channel with a mind-numbingly low signal-to-noise ratio.</p>
<p>And I can only buy into your human search engine 1) if you always search within a narrow knowledge domain, 2) you have a significantly large Twitter following of people with expertise in that domain, 3) you don&#8217;t need source citations, and 4) the info is so new/dynamic that it can&#8217;t be found on the intertubes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mat</title>
		<link>http://melissablogs.com/2009/08/18/twitter-do-it/comment-page-1/#comment-16211</link>
		<dc:creator>Mat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:23:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.melissaclouthier.com/?p=14500#comment-16211</guid>
		<description>I kinda agree with Doc.  I don&#039;t really see the point of it when you can write a post (that&#039;s usually heftier).  Twitter just seems to be blurbs.  Sorry, but I just cannot get into the Twitter fad.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I kinda agree with Doc.  I don&#8217;t really see the point of it when you can write a post (that&#8217;s usually heftier).  Twitter just seems to be blurbs.  Sorry, but I just cannot get into the Twitter fad.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Birds fly; douchebags twitter &#171; docweaselblog</title>
		<link>http://melissablogs.com/2009/08/18/twitter-do-it/comment-page-1/#comment-16210</link>
		<dc:creator>Birds fly; douchebags twitter &#171; docweaselblog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:15:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.melissaclouthier.com/?p=14500#comment-16210</guid>
		<description>[...] By docweasel   Melissa Clouthier, whom I usually respect and read with interest, seeks to spread the worst kind of annoying idiocy. Well, not the worst, maybe just the latest. It has taken quite a while for people with taste and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] By docweasel   Melissa Clouthier, whom I usually respect and read with interest, seeks to spread the worst kind of annoying idiocy. Well, not the worst, maybe just the latest. It has taken quite a while for people with taste and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Twitter, Blog Commenting &#38; Doc Weasel: Thy Name Is Parody &#171; Blog Entry &#171; Dr. Melissa Clouthier</title>
		<link>http://melissablogs.com/2009/08/18/twitter-do-it/comment-page-1/#comment-16207</link>
		<dc:creator>Twitter, Blog Commenting &#38; Doc Weasel: Thy Name Is Parody &#171; Blog Entry &#171; Dr. Melissa Clouthier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:07:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.melissaclouthier.com/?p=14500#comment-16207</guid>
		<description>[...] got this comment from my post on Twitter from famed blogger Doc Weasel [language and link warning: he likes using bad words and images might [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] got this comment from my post on Twitter from famed blogger Doc Weasel [language and link warning: he likes using bad words and images might [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: docweasel</title>
		<link>http://melissablogs.com/2009/08/18/twitter-do-it/comment-page-1/#comment-16206</link>
		<dc:creator>docweasel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:41:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.melissaclouthier.com/?p=14500#comment-16206</guid>
		<description>ugh. twitter is for twits, but only because of the fortuitous syllable synchronicity. In reality, it&#039;s for self-absorbed douchebags. There have always been people who think they need to say every stupid thing that comes into their heads: now we have a means to broadcast it immediately to a group of other smug douchebags.

No one is that witty. No one has that many intelligent, important things to say. And I refuse to believe anyone is bettered by reading any of this useless tripe. 

Thankfully, it&#039;s a trope so stupid and useless it&#039;s become risible and passe even as it&#039;s booming. I give it another half a year before the sheer idiocy of &quot;tweeting&quot; your own deep thoughts incessantly is reduced to that circle of people who are oblivious to their own pathetic boobery and the well-deserved ridicule of the rest of us.

Blogging and commenting (not excluding this one) brought writing to it&#039;s least well-thought out, unimportant and retarded level. Well, tweeting has managed to reduce writing to the cyber-equivalent of instantaneously disseminating your brain farts far and wee.

Anyone who sends out twitters is a pathetic douche. Anyone who willingly subjects themselves to twitters is a fucking idiot.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ugh. twitter is for twits, but only because of the fortuitous syllable synchronicity. In reality, it&#8217;s for self-absorbed douchebags. There have always been people who think they need to say every stupid thing that comes into their heads: now we have a means to broadcast it immediately to a group of other smug douchebags.</p>
<p>No one is that witty. No one has that many intelligent, important things to say. And I refuse to believe anyone is bettered by reading any of this useless tripe. </p>
<p>Thankfully, it&#8217;s a trope so stupid and useless it&#8217;s become risible and passe even as it&#8217;s booming. I give it another half a year before the sheer idiocy of &#8220;tweeting&#8221; your own deep thoughts incessantly is reduced to that circle of people who are oblivious to their own pathetic boobery and the well-deserved ridicule of the rest of us.</p>
<p>Blogging and commenting (not excluding this one) brought writing to it&#8217;s least well-thought out, unimportant and retarded level. Well, tweeting has managed to reduce writing to the cyber-equivalent of instantaneously disseminating your brain farts far and wee.</p>
<p>Anyone who sends out twitters is a pathetic douche. Anyone who willingly subjects themselves to twitters is a fucking idiot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Gomez</title>
		<link>http://melissablogs.com/2009/08/18/twitter-do-it/comment-page-1/#comment-16205</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Gomez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:52:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.melissaclouthier.com/?p=14500#comment-16205</guid>
		<description>Melissa: Thanks for this post. I&#039;m glad I follow you on Twitter and was able to see it.

It seems like you&#039;ve hit on some of the best reasons to become active on Twitter.

I like the idea of a &quot;human search engine&quot;...it&#039;s an apt tagline for Twitter and sums up the utility quite well. And it&#039;s also fun.

As a writer and marketing professional, I use Twitter as a means of testing the waters. I like to see what others are talking about, share links to find people with common interests and concerns, and to spark new ideas.

Always moving forward. That&#039;s one of the greatest benefits of Twitter. It never seems to be stuck on a single topic. Things just keep moving along, and the opt-in feature makes it easy for users to just follow whatever they wish. Quite liberating, actually.

Thanks, again. Keep Tweeting.

@mediamatt</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Melissa: Thanks for this post. I&#8217;m glad I follow you on Twitter and was able to see it.</p>
<p>It seems like you&#8217;ve hit on some of the best reasons to become active on Twitter.</p>
<p>I like the idea of a &#8220;human search engine&#8221;&#8230;it&#8217;s an apt tagline for Twitter and sums up the utility quite well. And it&#8217;s also fun.</p>
<p>As a writer and marketing professional, I use Twitter as a means of testing the waters. I like to see what others are talking about, share links to find people with common interests and concerns, and to spark new ideas.</p>
<p>Always moving forward. That&#8217;s one of the greatest benefits of Twitter. It never seems to be stuck on a single topic. Things just keep moving along, and the opt-in feature makes it easy for users to just follow whatever they wish. Quite liberating, actually.</p>
<p>Thanks, again. Keep Tweeting.</p>
<p>@mediamatt</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

