<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: To Tweet or not to Tweet</title>
	<atom:link href="http://generallordisimo.com/2009/08/18/to-tweet-or-not-to-tweet/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://generallordisimo.com/2009/08/18/to-tweet-or-not-to-tweet/</link>
	<description>pushing the end times since 1984</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 22:28:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathaniel</title>
		<link>http://generallordisimo.com/2009/08/18/to-tweet-or-not-to-tweet/#comment-1641</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nathaniel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:29:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://generallordisimo.com/?p=1529#comment-1641</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Chris Matyszczyk of CNET offer &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10311596-71.html?part=rss&amp;subj=news&amp;tag=2547-1_3-0-5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a kind of defense of twitter&lt;/a&gt;.  Sure it isn&#039;t really a direct response to the stance of Mr. Coldewey, and I&#039;d say Mr. Matysczyk does a rather poor job of proving one way or another whether tweets are not actually &quot;senseless babble&quot; (that may be indeed because the definition of &quot;senseless babble&quot; is quite subjective and it yet to be recognized as a sound qualitative analysis of any form of communication).  But what I will give Mr. Matyszczyk credit for is perhaps bringing to light a point I think that might be missed about Twitter, which is as pointless as Mr. Coldewey and I might be able to determine that it is, people like it and use it regardless (hell I find times to like and use it as well).  Perhaps Twitter could be used to make one of the best cases for the absurdity of being.  That even in its very possible banality and vanity and all it&#039;s other faults it is still functioning and getting attention.  It exists and that might be its point in and of itself.

Just some more thoughts really.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris Matyszczyk of CNET offer <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10311596-71.html?part=rss&amp;subj=news&amp;tag=2547-1_3-0-5" rel="nofollow">a kind of defense of twitter</a>.  Sure it isn&#8217;t really a direct response to the stance of Mr. Coldewey, and I&#8217;d say Mr. Matysczyk does a rather poor job of proving one way or another whether tweets are not actually &#8220;senseless babble&#8221; (that may be indeed because the definition of &#8220;senseless babble&#8221; is quite subjective and it yet to be recognized as a sound qualitative analysis of any form of communication).  But what I will give Mr. Matyszczyk credit for is perhaps bringing to light a point I think that might be missed about Twitter, which is as pointless as Mr. Coldewey and I might be able to determine that it is, people like it and use it regardless (hell I find times to like and use it as well).  Perhaps Twitter could be used to make one of the best cases for the absurdity of being.  That even in its very possible banality and vanity and all it&#8217;s other faults it is still functioning and getting attention.  It exists and that might be its point in and of itself.</p>
<p>Just some more thoughts really.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

