fake-celeb Twitters...

Darren Dirt · April 23, 2009, 03:00:54 PM

...share the ones you encounter, apparently one of the funnier ones is this:
http://twitter.com/clusterwalken

wit and weirdness, in the same style as The Man would likely utilize, e.g. "People were very upset with me yesterday. Then I remembered that they let George Bush be president here twice. So now I'm upset with them."

I wonder if the real Walken really does have a neighbour named "Mrs. Liebowitz"... or a problem with raccoons...

Thorin · April 23, 2009, 04:06:36 PM

I am specifically choosing to ignore Twitter, as I know it will be a huge timesink with no real value (not even entertainment value most of the time).

Lazybones · April 23, 2009, 06:01:01 PM

Ditto, besides Facebook offers similar functions.

Mr. Analog · April 23, 2009, 08:32:18 PM

Twitter is great for spamming links back and forth and since it's so integrated with everything I don't need to go there to keep up to date with cool stuff.

It's like a friends-only StumbleUpon!

Tonnica · April 24, 2009, 09:12:48 AM

You know what else is a goldmine for fake celeb posts? Livejournal. There's some pretty creative things going on there despite it being Livejournal.

I'm sure your link is great for laughs Darren but I won't touch Twitter. I won't go near it for many of the same reasons other people with common sense and sanity won't touch Livejournal which seems a bit ironic considering my second sentence. It's all of the noise and none of the imagepost. :|

Tom · April 24, 2009, 02:32:31 PM

Quote from: Tonnica on April 24, 2009, 09:12:48 AM
You know what else is a goldmine for fake celeb posts? Livejournal. There's some pretty creative things going on there despite it being Livejournal.

I'm sure your link is great for laughs Darren but I won't touch Twitter. I won't go near it for many of the same reasons other people with common sense and sanity won't touch Livejournal which seems a bit ironic considering my second sentence. It's all of the noise and none of the imagepost. :|

Actually twitter has its own dedicated image post site. lots of people paste images via it.

Tonnica · April 24, 2009, 03:29:12 PM

Quote from: Tom on April 24, 2009, 02:32:31 PMActually twitter has its own dedicated image post site. lots of people paste images via it.

Lordy I am going so off topic.

I had a revelation about how much like Twitter a *Chanboard is. Huh. This is a really interesting consideration that I'm mulling over. In a way I already use a Twitter-like service but instead of posting something to "no-one and everyone" I post to "everyone under X interest group".

Why do I so readily choose one over the other? I think there's the perceived cultural difference for starters. Twitter is more about social networking and with it comes the threat of an emotional roller-coaster. When I say "roller-coaster" I'm referring to the emotional investment placed in to a service that publishes messages to peers. I couldn't (and don't want to) deal with my peers and friends unsubscribing to my tweets because they're not interesting enough.

On the other hand on a Chanboard I'll fire out whatever comes to mind or is on hand and if I get responses at all I feel I've made a valid contribution. There's a much lower emotional investment and that lets me laugh off a bad thread or five or fifty.

Both Twitter and Channing are mind numbing time sinks but that finger can be readily pointed to any of my off-hours hobbies. I could give it a try but I'm already doing things with my time that I enjoy. Heck, I let my Facebook page lay fallow even though I know I've got messages I need to reply to. Realistically I'd have to give up something like Engadget or HowardForums just to be polite and keep up with other peoples' tweets.

And that makes me go D:

(Post scriptum: I'm also well aware I'm too "too long; didn't read" for Twitter even if it would be a good exercise in abbreviating my thoughts)

Tom · April 24, 2009, 03:37:06 PM

I signed up for Twitter a few weeks ago just to test it on my phone. It works

but typing on my phone is awful. Every once in a while
I'll twitter something.. but I dont spend a lot of time on it.

I use the RSS feed they provide to peruse my followees twits.

Tom · April 24, 2009, 04:05:43 PM

Now the real difference between Twitter and *chan is that on Twitter you get to hear about people taking a crap, and on *chan you get this:

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/4597/babiesu.jpg

damn it, that image makes me laugh almost every time I think about it.

Darren Dirt · April 24, 2009, 04:58:47 PM

Quote from: Tonnica on April 24, 2009, 03:29:12 PM
Quote from: Tom on April 24, 2009, 02:32:31 PMActually twitter has its own dedicated image post site. lots of people paste images via it.

Lordy I am going so off topic.

Seeing this, I somehow feel... vindicated.

The post was about READING twitters posing as actors, musicians, humourists, etc. that are in fact not them (not about CONTRIBUTING YOUR OWN twitter) (unless you are doing it "in character" as a celeb) (one that isn't you, which I think covers all of us) (at least, at the present moment).

in other words "so nobody else has any fake celeb twitters to share? Walken rules then?"

also, PS: "tl; dr"

Darren Dirt · April 24, 2009, 11:43:08 PM

Quote from: Tom on April 24, 2009, 02:32:31 PM
Actually twitter has its own dedicated image post site. lots of people paste images via it.

http://twitpic.com/3y0q2

^ Tony Hawk is, like, a fan of a great movie, man!

Lazybones · April 25, 2009, 01:35:01 AM

What I think of twitter

and the classic Le Twittre that Tom seemed to be referencing.

Darren Dirt · April 29, 2009, 07:17:58 PM

no wonder many of us hate Twitter -- it's not the service, it's us, we just don't "get it"...
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/164107/twitter_quitters_just_dont_get_it.html

http://www.pcworld.com/article/164103/why_most_twitter_users_give_up.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/164048/people_try_twitter_one_month_then_fly.html

/tongueincheek ... I don't think I'll ever "get it", and I don't wanna.

Quote
lexon says:
Wed Apr 29 15:53:59 PDT 2009
Re: Why Most Twitter Users Give Up

These social networks are just for insecure people who desperately need attention.

What a sad way to live.

^ Nailed it! ^

Thorin · April 29, 2009, 08:42:28 PM

Quote
Twitter and Facebook Are Just Different

Facebook and Twitter are simply two different services that need to co-exist on today's web. The only thing they have in common is that their users have a limited number of hours in the day in which to socialize.

At its core, Facebook is about closed sharing between a group of friends. That is why my sister, one of Facebook's first users, felt so compelled to use it, not because of apps or Beacon or tabs within tabs within tabs. It was simply about photos and messages on walls between friends.

Unlike Facebook, Twitter has not added new features. It has stuck to its core product: connecting people via short messages. And unlike Facebook, Twitter has allowed uni-directional connections: if you want to follow someone without him or her following you, you can. Twitter was never about sharing between friends in the first place, but rather about sharing news. And if you look at Twitter today, it has clearly changed the way the world consumes news.

source: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_has_twitter_envy_but_why.php

Darren Dirt · May 01, 2009, 09:07:55 AM

a REAL celeb is in the Sonic studios right now... the hilarious, successful, yet down-to-earth Jamie Kennedy (with his girlfriend Jennifer Love Hewitt!)

and Garner is at the top of his game, great interview so far...

http://www.sonic1029.com/listen/gateway.jsp

(likely will be in the archive for today, 01May2009.)

and OMG Jenn* has NEVER joined Jamie in interviews before this, apparently we're nicer in Canada... although we do like ironically reading the latest Maxim while celebs walk into the lobby, apparently.

*who likes dumb movies, "Weird Science" is one of her faves, wow!

*and SHE is the "merch" girl! Tonight at Londonderry Laugh Shop, who's with me?