"jps" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:37:09 -0400, hk wrote:

On 4/21/10 2:47 PM, jps wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:52:10 -0400,
wrote:

OK...I'm an old fogey, so, someone who isn't, please explain the
attraction of tweeting, instant messaging, et cetera, to those who do
not indulge.

I'm not talking about those who use the medium to exchange the
occasional bit of info, such as "got home from school safely," or "Hi,
Grandma!", but those who apparently spend a good part of the day
sending
or receiving hundreds of messages to their friends, relatives, and even
perfect strangers.




Tweeting is realtime info. You can follow fave celebs, talking heads,
savants or whomever and know their thoughts without the filter of the
media apparatus. It's text broadcast.

Texting or instant messaging is point to point which is good for
getting a hold of people no matter where they are. I can IM with a
collegue when I'm in a meeting or on the phone. Quite efficient,
actually.

Not so interested in the tweet thing but IM and texting are good
tools. Excellent if you want to stay in touch with your teen kids
while they're out in the world.



"Follow fave celebs" Uh, well, if I saw Penelope Cruz walking down K
Street, I'd follow her just to watch that... but follow her on a cell
phone? Not so much. :)

I'm not sure why I'd want to follow every utterance of a talking head, a
savant, or whomever.

I do understand the occasional Instant Message.

Note that I was discussing those who send or receive hundreds of
messages each day.

My kids can send and receive hundreds of messages in a week. For
them, it's like conversing on the phone but it can take place over
hours. Responses are as available so it fits into an active life.

New form of communication and language.


Now preserved for ever in the Smithsonian I believe.

--
Nom=de=Plume