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.



--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

"hk" wrote in message
m...
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.



--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

Lots of that going on around here.

On Apr 20, 4:52*pm, hk 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.

--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

Try googling "why do people tweet", moron. Or are you just trying to
stir **** as usual?

On 4/21/2010 9:11 AM, Loogypicker wrote:
On Apr 20, 4:52 pm, 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.

--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

Try googling "why do people tweet", moron. Or are you just trying to
stir **** as usual?

Don't encourage him. Would you want Krause tweeting with your daughter
or your grand daughter?

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:52:10 -0400, hk
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.

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.




--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

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.

"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

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:59:14 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:35:16 -0700, jps wrote:

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.

It is not really all that new. IBM field techs were carrying an RF
connected portable terminal in 1985 that had peer to peer texting
capability. This was bigger than a blackberry but smaller than a net
book. (about 4 x 6 x 1.5) It also had full connectivity with the IBM
VM network, parts, dispatch and later the internet.
We learned to express our thoughts in 55 byte chunks.
Things like GR8, CUN10min and FKNA were in use long before a cell
phone had a display on it.
Most CEs had a story about texting while driving. This thing would
wedge in most steering wheels. It used a full power 3w cell
transmitter with a decent antenna so you could get fairly well.

Well, this version is widely avaiable and being adopted and
transformed by youth. It's the modern phone call for them but far
more efficient. And when they need to talk about something, they
dial.

It has its problems, mostly related to what Nom touched on, a record
of utterances that would never be collected by a voice phone, unless
recorded. Messages can be saved and passed along at a later date when
personal affiliations have changed.

Kids learn the hazards of digital communication early in life.

"jps" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:59:14 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:35:16 -0700, jps wrote:

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.

It is not really all that new. IBM field techs were carrying an RF
connected portable terminal in 1985 that had peer to peer texting
capability. This was bigger than a blackberry but smaller than a net
book. (about 4 x 6 x 1.5) It also had full connectivity with the IBM
VM network, parts, dispatch and later the internet.
We learned to express our thoughts in 55 byte chunks.
Things like GR8, CUN10min and FKNA were in use long before a cell
phone had a display on it.
Most CEs had a story about texting while driving. This thing would
wedge in most steering wheels. It used a full power 3w cell
transmitter with a decent antenna so you could get fairly well.

Well, this version is widely avaiable and being adopted and
transformed by youth. It's the modern phone call for them but far
more efficient. And when they need to talk about something, they
dial.

It has its problems, mostly related to what Nom touched on, a record
of utterances that would never be collected by a voice phone, unless
recorded. Messages can be saved and passed along at a later date when
personal affiliations have changed.

Kids learn the hazards of digital communication early in life.


I've cautioned my nephew/niece about this several times. "Don't say anything
and esp. don't post any picture that you wouldn't want on the front page of
the newspaper."

--
Nom=de=Plume