Twitter is just another marketing tool for people like you. Good luck with it, I'm not interested.

There's also the chase to be the first one to inform everybody about the death of a celebrity and the inevitable subsequent chain of RIP's but just like the sports scores, you've probably already learned about such already.

"I have the advantage of being, for my sins, a celebrity.

Being a celebrity seems a time consuming occupation. "How dreary to be somebody..."

I love following you on twitter, Roger.

Here's a slight correction: there's really no need to abbreviate links anymore. They used to count toward your 140 characters, but now all links, regardless of length, count as exactly 20 characters. Twitter is shortening links using their t.co domain, and displaying an easy-to-read version of the long URL (it drops the http:// and truncates off the end of long URLs). This is often better because when I click a bitly link, I have no idea where it's going to take me. Sometimes the surprise is fun, admittedly, but in general it's nice to be able to read the link. Also, twitter is using t.co in addition to your bit.ly, so your links are going through two layers of re-direction which means it'll take a millisecond or two longer to get to where you're taking me.

I used to be on Usenet, back in the day. (Geezer that I am, I even had a weekly chatroom for our writing group...Let your kids ask their grandparents about THAT one.)
Despite the wild-west unmoderated tone that we have eliminated today with blogs and forums, it not only kept discussion topics compartmentalized for topics, but the regulars knew each other. A particularly intermingled discussion group on a shared topic could, with the right members, blossom into a complete Algonquin Round Table on the subject, offering more info on the subject than a dozen so-called real experts could offer.

And back then, of course, we Internet folk were the only ones who knew about them...All the common dopes were still using AOL, because that was the Internet Thing that TV commercials told them about.
And then, all those early 90's folk who hadn't even hooked up their computer to the Internet, and tried to look smug and progressive by saying "Get out and have REAL conversations with human beings!--I don't need invisible imaginary friends on my screen!"

Now, it's fifteen years later. And things have switched.
Now, it's the common dopes who seek out random Internet conversation at random, and hope their invisible imaginary friends will Like them (with the push of a button, no less)--While the experienced people are still where they were back then: Seeking out specialized compartmentalized discussion where you would expect to find it, refining each other's conversations in detail, and not begging for attention from strangers, when the experts had more interesting things to say.

One thing, however, has not changed: Corporations don't know how to use the Internet, and the Common Dopes don't either, so advertising still goes where the Common Dopes gather.
Used to be, everything had its own AOL link; nowadays, every ad says "Like us on Twitter/Facebook."
(I find it somewhat ironic, in that advertising is in the business of begging the public "Like us", and now they're saying it for REAL.) ;)

In short, Rog: Don't brag about Twitter...That's like showing off your new digital watch.
Brag, if you can, about finding specific information in places where it can be sought out. Brag about that "Best Blog" award you got (before they come and revoke it for all the doctor/death whines we've been getting lately.)
Brag about NOT using Twitter and Facebook...Because now it's the former Internet geeks telling you to get out your door and find real people again.

Perhaps it's just a small personal quirk that's uniquely my own, but I favor a fairly small circle of people. I think that's probably why I don't understand the appeal of Facebook or Twitter. They remind me of that scene in "Crocodile Dundy" where Dundy is walking down a street in New York City; he tries being friendly and says 'hi' to everyone he's passing by, and then he notices the seemingly infinite stream of people approaching, and says "Shi!!".

Also—just an observation—don't you find it just a wee bit annoying when you take the time to travel all the way to a friend's place to have a conversation with them, and they start answering the phone every 45 seconds?

In my 20s, I thought I was a good writer. Then I became an ad copywriter, and I discovered how much I still had to learn.

I'm 41 today. I'm pleased to find that a few years of writing short, punchy headlines professionally has made me, on a very good day, a pretty good writer.

Now comes Twitter. Agreed, you have to boost your signal/noise ratio. And I love that you have to keep your Tweets short. The hard part is to make 'em short AND sweet.

roger - any thoughts on twitter's recent announcement that they're now accepting political advertising?

I do follow you on Twitter, but do not tweet. There are a few others that I follow as well. Just kind of fun to check in on the tweets here and there. I have enjoyed many of your special pages, even share them with others from time to time via email.

I do have an account now, wanted the ability to reply or chime in. I used to have just the feeds from yours, Bluegrass Poet, and MoRyan. Having a twitter account gives me a place to check in on whatever is happening with those people. Do not check them daily. MoRyan is a tv critic and I find out when she posts new pieces quickly.

Face it, Roger, your tweets set a pretty high bar :) You get around the character limit by having those mini-links embedded.

If you really wanted to influence people, you would write a screenplay and make a movie full of "moments of Epiphany" and wonderfulness.
On a site called Script Shadow, they have reviews of all six Star Wars movies (new on Blu-Ray) that lay out a blueprint.
A complex Story World, and a chase movie.
For the entire movie, constant pressure on the heroes to "move... move.... MOVE" to escape their own deaths, until the final scene, where they beat the odds and destroy the very thing that seemed impossible to defeat.
A simple formula... often copied, seldom successfully.
Maybe all your Tweets... and your morning walks in Chicago and London... could inspire you to create a story world like, well, Hogwarts?

Much ado about nothing

Sorry, but it sounds terribly useless and stupid to me.

None of you Twits are as clever as you think you are.

Read a book. Write your mother. Speak to your children. The rest of the time, shut up and turn it off.

You are the Tweetmaster.

Well timed Roger, posted shortly after I made all of my students create Twitter accounts for a professional writing class. Most of them groaned and grumbled about having to create an account but some of them at least have come to see the value of it. What's ironic to me is that the very reason Twitter was created (tell your friends what you're up to) has proven to be what's worst about it. As I told my students, nobody cares what you had for breakfast, but people might care what you're doing with your business or what you're working on in your field of study.

I've found Twitter more valuable for following than for being followed. It allows me to keep abreast of what's going on in higher education and in the world of creative writing. When Troy Davis' execution was on hold a few days ago I found myself following the Twitter stream about him (suspiciously censored by Twitter, but that's another issue) rather than the big news sites because I found Twitter offered more accurate and more up-to-date information.

For a generation supposedly reared on rapid technological advancement, I'm often surprised at how resistant my students are trying out new technologies. As I told them in class though, if you don't at least try these things out, you risk falling so far behind the curve that you'll never catch up. You don't have to like Twitter or use it but you should understand how it works and why it's there because if you don't even possess that understanding you're well on your way to becoming whatever the future equivalent would be of someone who thinks the internet is a series of tubes. But I've got a few of them tweeting now, and several of them on Google+ (the new frontier) so I guess they've taken me to heart. I'll be passing this article along to them as well and I'll be sure to make them take a quiz on it.

Roger if you could sum your life up as characters from movies who would they be?

Ebert: It would be Caden Cotard (Philip Seymour Hoffman) in "Synechdoche, NY."

I don't actually follow anyone on twitter, ie:having the immediate tweet pop up on my phone as it happens. Too intrusive for me. But I do check with a few people now and again. My favourites are from my personal friends speaking casually about everyday things but with a little touch of humour. Like...

Came downstairs to find the kids had made their own breakfast. Girl: Oatmeal. Boy:Popsicle.

or

Before answering the door at the cabin, my son audibly reassured himself that bigfoot doesn't know how to knock on doors.

Hi Roger,

As Andy is your guru, you are mine. You inspired me to start tweeting, and I thank you for that. Thank you also for staying with me all this time, when I must surely irritate you at times.

The reminder on signal/noise ratio is valuable. I'm probably guilty of that as I'm tweeting while I'm watching a debate, etc. I'll have to give that some thought. I'm enjoying tweeting quotes this week from Mark Steyn's excellent book - expressing myself through his eloquent statements.

I would state it this way to new tweeters: tweet authentically. What do you have to say that is important to you and that reveals you? Express yourself meaningfully.

It is seductive, no doubt. But fullfilling. Micro-blogging is instantly cathartic.

See you on Twitter this week. It should be interesting as the election heats up. I appreciate your presence there.

Good day, Mr. Ebert!

This great post of yours has reminded me of how you pretty much influenced me into opening my mind to Twitter. I'm pretty sure my Twitter's birthday was the day you published your blog post, "Tweet! Tweet! Tweet!" For the first few months, I was content with a few dozen followers.

But then, when my blog was put up, my friend, who is an internet marketing specialist, advised that I conform to the dishonorable (for me at least) Mass Following, in an attempt to get more people to notice my blog. I now have about 2,000 followers, but I follow just about the same number of people.

I'm not proud of this method, but I have made a few online friends as a result, with whom I have maintained a relationship with. The biggest problem with following 2,000 people, and counting, is that there are so many tweets on my home page that I never get to see any Tweets. Everything just gets pushed down so fast. So what I do is that I just frequently visit the accounts of certain people and just take a look at their Tweets there. Such people include you, Mr. Ebert, and my celebrity crush, Saoirse Ronan.

Anyway, your memoirs has yet to arrive in my country! What am I gonna do till then? Play video games?!

May God bless you and Chaz always.

One more lesson for new Tweeters - it took me a long time to figure out that you don't always have to hit "Reply" on something you disagree with. Sometimes. Sparingly. Not always.

It's like photography. I had to learn over time that I did not always have to take the picture that I saw in front of me. Sometimes it's just not the right time to do so. I just smile now, and think to myself "that would make a good picture", and move on. Happier that way.

Blogs are a good place for conversations expressing dissent. Facebook less so. Twitter even less so.

Twitter is more one-direction cathartic expression. I say what I want to say at the moment and don't always want feedback. I'm just saying to whoever sees it "hey, here's something to look at or think about".

Giving that same consideration to someone you're following is harder. I want to hit reply. I need to hit reply. More and more now I'm not hitting reply. I just think "that would be a good tweet to disagree with", and move on. I try to reply only sparingly. Happier that way.

Twitter is definitely a learning curve.

I was devastated to see that you're signing books today without my knowing it. Will there be any other signings in the near future? Don't tell me I missed my only chance.

I've shunned tweeting, blogging, Facebook'ing, Ipad'ing and the like, preferring instead to spend the my precious time in the real world, having real life experiences. Then today, I realized that the bulk of my "real life experiences" involve standing in line at Target, arguing with idiots at customer service counters, glaring at jerks who make noise in movies and conversing with my friends about Dancing With The Stars. Need to rethink this.

Yikes.
Awaiting Part III.

here's why i won't tweet, as if my reasons are important:

i blog. but when i started blogging, it slowed my "important" writing, like finishing novels and writing more poetry. blogging was shorter and easier, more condensed, not expanded as well, and it dampened my "thinking."

then i got on facebook. when i got on facebook, it slowed my blogging. i went almost a year without an entry because all i did was sit on facebook, reading my friends' posts, commenting, etc.

i'm afraid that if i start tweeting, then my writing will be pretty much diminished to individual, abbreviated thoughts, and i'll never write anything that actually matters.

i just don't have enough time for all that, middle school literature, marking papers, lesson plans, surfing lessons, poker nights, union meetings, etc.

Ebert: My advice: Don't tweet.

@ adam breckenridge -

why do your "professional writing" students need twitter accounts?

I don't know much about Twitter, but I follow the tweets of several museums and artists, including the artists at DARPA.
I do know about Email. Email was said to kill the handwritten letter.
My guess is that Twitter will kill nothing. It may revive the handwritten letter.
The message is in what?

You do make me laugh (at myself really)! I got a twitter account because I wanted to start following Ai Weiwei when he was released and started tweeting again. Boy was I surprised when I realized his tweets are all in Chinese, and apparently google translate does not do him credit. Thank you for the advice however, since I follow more than I tweet this will be helpful for when I make the next leap!

I was pretty active on facebook for couple of months and revived some connections resulting in a business or two, but twitter was never my thing (I have two accounts and three followers at the moment).

I think twitter can be very powerful at the moment but I am not so sure if it will last. There is a lot of competition and not too much time out there:)

No way do I get pop up tweets. I have a link on tool bar of laptop so that I can click on twitter when I want to. Also have a separate bookmark for Roger's twitter feed. I don't even like IM. Disabled it on email and FB. Freaks me out.

And my phone is primarily used as phone. Send and receive maybe ten texts a month :)

Thanks, Randy, but I don't have enough to say to really tweet.

Ebert: My advice: Don't tweet.

I've deaddicted from net, reducing my online by 80%. Now I want to strip my reading to the bone.

To quote Montaigne:

I would like to suggest that our minds are swamped by too much studying of too much matter just as plants are swamped by too much water or lamps by too much oil; that our minds, held fast and encumbered by so many diverse preoccupations, may well lose the means of struggling free, remaining bowed and bent under the load; except that it is quite otherwise: the more our souls are filled, the more they expand; examples drawn from far-off times show, on the contrary, that great soldiers and statesmen were also great scholars.

I have been a devoted Pogo fan since age 3. I knew you have good taste, but this is a profound confirmation.

Ebert: I collected every one of those little paperbacks when they came out.

Here's a blog you should know about:

http://bit.ly/pSBVd7

"....Caden Cotard...."

...for Narcissism' sake!

The important thing that new Twitter users (and twitter decriers) tend to forget is that the service ISN'T about getting people to follow YOU-- it's about you FOLLOWING other people.

Sure, you can create a circle of friends, and if you're a celebrity (no matter how minor) you will attract a following, but ultimately the value in the service is to have constant news updates aggregated for you in an easily accessible location. Where else can you get news, musings, and links from nearly all of the luminaries in any given area, be they journalists, movie reviewers, educators, musicians, actors, or hobbyists? Where else do you have a chance to interact with said people on a daily basis?

Hell, posting consumer complaints on Twitter will nearly guarantee you a response from someone in that company. Try that with a phone call, letters, or an e-mail.

If you think Twitter is useless, you're using it wrong.

@Richard Voza

There are several reasons I require my professional writing students to create Twitter accounts.

First, it may help to clarify that this is one assignment in a larger section on online writing. I've been teaching them how businesses and individuals use social media and other tools of Web 2.0 for the purposes of promoting themselves either as a corporation or as individuals with aspiring career goals. There are several reasons Twitter is useful for this:

First, many businesses now hire social media coordinators who are responsible for maintaining the company's online ethos. Much like with business letters and emails, Twitter and Facebook feeds come to represent the company to the public and as such, falls well under the realm of professional writing, either because they may find themselves working as social media coordinators or, the more likely scenario, they will want to use a site like Twitter to promote the businesses many of them plan on opening for themselves.

Second, it's a great way to follow trends in their career of interest. I have encouraged them to find other professionals and professional organizations in their field to follow. The more informed they are of goings-ons in their field, the better prepared they will be for the job market (and how to get a job also falls under the realm of professional writing since your writing skills, through your resume and other professional documents, are one of the pivotal factors by which a potential job candidate is judged). In a similar vein, I also teach them about how a backchannel works, as it is useful to understand the concept if, for example, you want to follow trends and discussions at an event you're unable to attend.

Third, many of my students already have Twitter accounts and many of those who didn't have found themselves taking to it and starting to tweet. Because of this, one of the most important lessons they need to learn is what possible consequences their online presence can have for them in the future. One of the things I've been driving home for them is that there is no privacy online and just about everything they do, from pictures they post to messages they tweet, is out there for others to find. This is particularly important because most of my students are in their late teens and early twenties and still don't think clearly about the consequences their actions might hold in the future (I believe there is a study somewhere showing that people don't develop a strong sense of these consequences until their mid twenties). As I told them, it may be funny today to post a picture of you at a party passed out in your own vomit with penises drawn on your forehead (with accompanying tweets about how wasted you got) but those pictures and tweets are still going to be on the internet years from now and are going to seem a lot less funny when you get turned down for a job because of them.

There is an old saying that all technology is a Faustian bargain and as such I created this section of the course for the purpose of driving home just how much social media can help them and hurt them professionally. I'm trying to encourage them to experiment with new technologies as they emerge with an understanding of how this bargain works so that they can use these tools to their advantage while minimizing potential downsides as much as possible.

I like twitter because they let just about anybody have an account: snakes, dogs, cats, even stuffed bunnies like me. I have been to a twitter exercise class for stuffed animals, I have been to a cat meet-up on twitter, I've even been to a creative script writing session on twitter. It's amazing what you can do on twitter with just a few words and an idea. It just goes to show how creative people can and will be when given the platform. I like it a lot and find it very useful and not just for tweeting links and self promotion. I think all who haven't tried it should give it a good chance...what have you got to lose? It's barely any typing! Take it from a bunny, twitter is pretty cool.

A tweet from Montaigne which aptly describes twitter:

"It was ingeniously and home-said by him, who was the inventor of this sentence:

"Stercus cuique suum bene olet."

["To every man his own excrements smell well."—Erasmus]"

Now you have run two entries (also 6/11/2010) featuring pictures of Twitter bluebirds. But are they really bluebirds? This one here looks like Tweety Bird with a nose job. And everyone knows Tweety is a canary. In fact they all resemble canaries more than bluebirds. What's up already? Were their feathers dyed? Maybe they interbreed? Clarification please.

This is how I found out that you no longer follow me on Twitter. I understand and apologize.

Ebert: For what?

I enjoy your tweeting style, Roger. You "curate" interesting things from the web (mostly about movies) and serve them up to us. I also notice that you have an interest in amazing or fantastical things, like science--and I like your humor. I try to emulate your style a little, but I do it with a much smaller audience of 60 followers. :)

Your blog and tweets lead me to the most interesting things--don't know what I'd do w/o you anymore! Thank You!

I never got into Facebook, but find Twitter a useful way to collect and share news about urban sustainability, environmental history, and the history of technology. Most every tweet I send links to a resource with a shortened URL (thanks to bitly.com), and my feed has alerted me to everything from the Christchurch earthquake to (just this week) the death of historian Oscar Handlin. Whatever the intended use of this resource, it has turned into a form of social media that can be highly substantive. IMHO, YMMV, etc.

Ebert: For what?

Non-essentials related to pro-wrestling or football or whatever. Granted I'm not the sort who posts "Crunch time!" but I'm not as good as I could be.

Roger--I tweet, therfore I am? I dunno, I still haven't given in to being a twitter. I never tried it; never really wanted to. My opening statement, perhaps, suggests many tweet just to hear themselves tweet. Would a person stop being relevant if they didn't tweet every thought or impulse to all the other tweetys out there? I think not. What did people do before television? They read, wrote letters to people they cared about, listened to the radio, talked to friends and family. I can't remember the last time I wrote a letter by hand to a friend or relative; everything now is e-mails and texting. Just for the record, I don't text, either. The computer (and all the other electronics available to us), for all the good they can do, are probably monopolizing too much of our time. Occupying every spare minute with tweets should be a warning to folks: Stop, smell the flowers and talk to the people who matter in your life. What was it that Cat Stevens sang about? We're only dancing on this Earth a short while. Make it count.

While I'm spamming the comment section of this blog (it's been awhile, what can I say?), I figured I'd mention that I really miss the daily Amazon tweets. Those were great while they lasted.

I love how gleeful some of the commenters here are with their total ignorance of a piece of technology. Fine, if you don't want to participate in something, then that's great. But they seem to take great pleasure in showing how above they are to people that use Twitter. Or worse, try to come across as the way THEY are is the correct way to be, and if you don't do that, then you're wrong. Take for example:

"...just another marketing tool for people like you. Good luck with it, I'm not interested."

"Sorry, but it sounds terribly useless and stupid to me."

"Read a book. Write your mother. Speak to your children. The rest of the time, shut up and turn it off."

Twitter is just a tool. A tool to use. It's not a lifestyle, though some may use it as such.

Every bird has a song.
Some are short and some are long.
some sound sad and some sing sweet.
I think this fits nicely as a tweet.

Hey Roger,
I thought this could be interesting for you and the Sun-Times

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Big-medias-shameful-blackout-on-the-Wall-Street-protests.html

And quotes. Twitter is useful for quotes, though I've found that I have to break the larger ones into multiple tweets. And now Twitter condenses web addresses for you, so no more having to use sites like tinyurl (the one I used to use) to shrink links.

And for people who follow many people on Twitter, I would recommend creating lists. The only annoyance is when conversations occur to people outside the list, but hey, that's life.

I like to think of themes for my tweets. On the road I say "I'm starting a journal called 'Road Reflections', then most of the next tweets are my reflections on the road. I have seventeen followers, most of which I do not know and am sure do not read my tweets. It makes me feel all-right that at least they're on someone's stream.

I hoping that someday someone finds my tweets and feels like they've found something interesting that no one else knows about.

I was all ready to offer some tired get-a-friend-read-a-book-watch-a-sunset rebuke when I read an NPR tweet that linked to Washington-Monument-during-the-quake security cam footage (http://www.nps.gov/wamo/washington-monument-earthquake-update.htm). OK. Twitter is awesome. Like Cloverfield with steadier cams.

I see that "The error of political prayer" has already reached the archives. I'll leave it up to you to decide if you want to pitch it or place it. (No hard feelings if you do. I know it's off-topic). But you know how it is when you come across something where you want to say, "Hey, you just have to read this!"

Well, actually, I suppose that's what you do with Twitter. Give the link. But do people actually go to the link? Especially if it's something that was, Gulp, written over two hundred and fifty years ago. Nevertheless, it just seems so appropriate to the political climate today—particularly so with respect to the "religious." You'll recall that in a recent debate, when it was mentioned that Perry executed 235 people, the audience applauded. Yet, when Perry gave due credit to President Obama for his bold decision to kill bin-Laden, it was met with silence.

~~~~~~~

Every once in a while in my studies I come across minds that are a true delight. One breathes a sigh of relief, knowing that there are voices of conscience in nearly every generation of man. John Foxe is one recent person who I've read and found remarkable for his humanity; and one out of sync with the time and place in which he lived. Yet, he was loved by many—if not listened to as often as ought to have been the case.

From Wikipedia:

John Woolman refused to draw up wills transferring slaves. Working on a non-confrontational, personal level, he individually convinced many Quaker slaveholders to free their slaves. He attempted personally to avoid using the products of slavery; for example, he wore undyed clothing because slaves were used in the making of dyes. He was also known in later life to abjure riding in stagecoaches, on grounds that their operation was too often cruel and injurious to their teams of horses.

Contrast Woolman with the likes of Falwell and Robertson. For instance, Robertson's idiotic statement that Haiti deserved a devastating earth quake because he believes (chooses to believe) that their ancestors made a pact with the Devil. Notice that Woolman states that his reliance upon God's assistance was from reading the Bible, and not from an actual conversation he had with Him. (God often chats with Robertson.)

~~~~~~~~~~~

John Woolman, Some Considerations on the Keeping of Negroes, Recommended to the Professors of Christianity of Every Denomination, 1754.

There are various circumstances amongst them that keep Negroes, and different ways by which they fall under their care; and, I doubt not, there are many well-disposed persons amongst them who desire rather to manage wisely and justly in this difficult matter than to make gain of it. But the general disadvantage which these poor Africans lie under in an enlightened Christian country having often filled me with real sadness, and been like undigested matter on my mind, I now think it my duty, through divine aid, to offer some thoughts thereon to the consideration of others.

When we remember that all nations are of one blood (Gen. 3:20); that in this world we are but sojourners; that we are subject to the like afflictions and infirmities of the body, the like disorders and frailties in mind, the like temptations, the same death and the same judgment; and that the All-wise Being is judge and Lord over us all, it seems to raise an idea of a general brotherhood and a disposition easy to be touched with feeling of each other’s afflictions. But when we forget those things and look chiefly at our outward circumstances, in this and some ages past, constantly retaining in our minds the distinction betwixt us and them with respect to our knowledge and improvement in things divine, natural, and artificial, our breasts being apt to be filled with fond notions of superiority, there is danger of erring in our conduct toward them.

We allow them to be of the same species with ourselves; the odds is we are in a higher station and enjoy greater favours than they. And when it is thus that our Heavenly Father endoweth some of his children with distinguished gifts, they are intended for good ends. But if those thus gifted are thereby lifted up above their brethren, not considering themselves as debtors to the weak nor behaving themselves as faithful stewards, none who judge impartially can suppose them free from ingratitude. When a people dwell under the liberal distribution of favours from heaven, it behooves them carefully to inspect their ways and consider the purposes for which these favours were bestowed, lest through forgetfulness of God and misusing his gifts they incur his heavy displeasure, whose judgments are just and equal, who exalteth and humbleth to the dust as he seeth meet.

. . . . To consider mankind otherwise than brethren, to think favours are peculiar to one nation and exclude others, plainly supposes a darkness in the understanding. For as God’s love is universal, so where the mind is sufficiently influenced by it, it begets a likeness of itself and the heart is enlarged towards all men. Again, to conclude a people forward, perverse, and worse by nature than others (who ungratefully receive favours and apply them to bad ends), this will excite a behavior toward them unbecoming the excellence of true religion.

To prevent such error let us calmly consider their circumstances, and, the better to do it, make their case ours. Suppose, then, that our ancestors and we have been exposed to constant servitude in the more servile and inferior employments of life; that we had been destitute of the help of reading and good company; that amongst ourselves we had had few wise and pious instructors; that the religious amongst our superiors seldom took notice of us; that while others in ease have plentifully heaped up the fruit of our labour, we had received barely enough to relieve nature, and being wholly at the command of others had generally been treated as a contemptible, ignorant part of mankind. Should we, in that case, be less abject than they are now? Again, if oppression be so hard to bear that a wise man is made mad by it (Eccles. 7:7), then a series of those things altering the behavior and manners of a people is what may reasonably be expected.

When our property is taken contrary to our mind by means appearing to us unjust, it is only through divine influence and the enlargement of heart from thence proceeding that we can love our reputed oppressors. If the Negroes fall short in this, an uneasy, if not disconsolate, disposition will be awakened and remain like seeds in their minds, producing sloth and many other habits appearing odious to us, with which being free men they perhaps had not been chargeable. These and other circumstances, rightly considered, will lessen that too great disparity which some make between us and them.

Integrity of heart hath appeared in some of them, so that if we continue in the word of Christ (previous to discipleship, Jn. 3:1) and our conduct towards them be seasoned with his love, we may hope to see the good effect of it, the which, in a good degree, is the case with some into whose hands they have fallen. But that too many treat them otherwise, not seeming conscious of any neglect, is, alas! too evident.

When self-love presides in our minds our opinions are biased in our own favour. In this condition, being concerned with a people so situated that they have no voice to plead their own cause, there’s danger of using ourselves to an undisturbed partiality till, by long custom, the mind becomes reconciled with it and the judgment itself infected.

To humbly apply to God for wisdom, that we may thereby be enabled to see things as they are and ought to be, is very needful; hereby the hidden things of darkness may be brought to light and the judgment made clear. We shall then consider mankind as brethren. . . .

If the treatment which many of them meet with be rightly examined and compared with those precepts, “Thou shalt not vex him nor oppress him; he shall be as one born amongst you, and thou shalt love him as thyself” (Lev. 19:33; Deut. 27:19), there will appear to be an important difference betwixt them.

It may be objected there is cost of purchase and risk of their lives to them who possess ‘em, and therefore needful that they make the best use of their time. In a practice just and reasonable such objections may have weight; but if the work be wrong from the beginning, there’s little or no force in them. If I purchase a man who hath never forfeited his liberty, the natural right of freedom is in him.
And shall I keep him and his posterity in servitude and ignorance? How should I approve of this conduct were I in his circumstances and he is mine? . . . .

We may further consider that they are now amongst us, and those of our nation the cause of their being here, that whatsoever difficulty accrues thereon we are justly chargeable with, and to bear all inconveniences attending it with a serious and weighty concern of mind to do our duty by them is the best we can do. To seek a remedy by continuing the oppression because we have power to do it and see others do it, will, I apprehend, not be doing as we would be done by.

How deeply soever men are involved in the most exquisite difficulties, sincerity of heart and upright walking before God, freely submitting to his providence, is the most sure remedy . . .

The noise vs. signal message you're making is somewhat lost on me. The tweet you say you're guilty of making noise...is my favorite of these examples in your blog.

I think I know what you mean by noise vs. signal. I'm sure some people tweet for attention w/o any thought to what they're saying--and I agree that's "noise." However, if someone is writing something on twitter that is senseless to a reader, that doesn't mean the twitter (I don't tweet; I don't know the lingo) isn't communicating something. Take, for example, some drunk screaming nonsense on the street to any passerby. It's "noise" in that it's probably incomprehensible to most people. But the hypothetical drunk is still saying something. But I get your point. Who wants to listen to someone who most likely isn't even sensible to their own selves.

And the first two friends' tweets of yours you use as examples as tweets w/ "signal" are really nonsensible to me...and I don't see how they can change the world. The first is very vague. Margo's "signal" is "noise" and can't influence people. What does she pity? That Perry did bad at a debate, or people at some hangout were abuzz about it?

Well, Andy's tweet is clear in its message. He needs less luxuries in NYC. But how will that change the world or influence people? And Dawkins' tweet is pointless. Unless maybe you're a fan and have followed previous ones. And I guess the same can go for Margo & Andy. If one follows their tweets, then they get the context.

The two tweets I can remember reading are of yours (one in this article; again, I'm not a twitter follower but an appreciative reader of your writing). I actually like your joke--even if you don't. And I like your tweet about Dunn. (I don't want to open a can of worms, but that tweet made news--and I believe your will behind that message was good!)

Thanks for the great and thought-provoking writing.

PEACE

I tried Twitter for 2 weeks. I'm just a normal: not a celebrity or anyone. Nothing made me feel smaller or less significant than following the trivial tweets of successful people.

So I quit it. It's a shame really because sometimes good links were posted. But I found it too humiliating that I should care what somebody had for breakfast.

I’ve noticed an odd trend in the comments on this topic. A lot of the people who think Twitter is useless or who have tried it and turned away are writing comments short enough or almost short enough to be tweets, while the people who like Twitter are speaking at greater length.

I remember your first blog entry about Twitter quite well. I boldly proclaimed that I would never, ever waste my time with such a service. I suppose I should print out my comment, put some A-1 sauce on the paper and swallow it enthusiastically.

Yes, I Tweet, and though I have only about two dozen followers (most of whom are spambots), I get a great deal of enjoyment from it. For one thing, I get interesting articles from all over the Web from people whom I enjoy. You were the first, Roger, but I also follow the NYT (great way to avoid paying a subscription), Joe Hill, David Pogue and Yoko Ono, among others. (I was thrilled when Yoko followed me back until I realized that she follows EVERYONE. :-)) And while my Tweets may not be the most fascinating or popular ones, they make me quite happy and avoid mindless chatter. I try to be witty and insightful, and I succeed at least 50% of the time, I estimate. Most of all, I can speak my mind and not worry about what my friends will say.

So, Roger, thank you for leading me to the land of Twits.

@lynnwritestuff

Facebook is a little like Twitter, where you can show your status. I usually try to keep those statements limited to one a day, and usually about something important in my life that I'd like to share. I have made jokes now and then. Here is one:
STEVEN ACKERMAN had a polio shot, a mumps shot, a small pox shot, a whooping cough shot, and a measles shot-then fell downstairs!!!!
That is a joke from a Peanuts cartoon, where Charlie Brown has his head in bandages and his arm in a sling, explaining something to Violet. The joke is he got all these shots to protect himself yet still got hurt.
People have liked my status and responded to it now and then, but I don't feel I need to join Twitter and spend my time talking about small things every few minutes. I think it can be useful, but shouldn't be abused, which is what people are mostly doing.

You the man, Roger.

Follow up to Roger's 'King of Cheeses' tweet:

In an invaluable Wikipedia update, I've learned Salvador Dali was a lifelong connoisseur of cheese. He could spend 4 months at a time simply cheese-making. Why am I not surprised his favorite cheese was swiss?

Allow me to stand on the digital soapbox for a moment.

I like Twitter. It's quick and promotes wit in a short space, plus signing up or off is easy, no myriad privacy concerns or endless pointless minutiae of distractions as with Facebook or any of it's equally vapid clones. But I don't like those that use it for shameless self-promotion, i.e. by endlessly retweeting praise and reviews.

I like how Roger has been almost discreet about his memoirs: there was a New York Times review and a few mentions prior/post release, but not a deluge, demonstrating considerable restraint and conversely making me more interested in it. Sometimes the best publicity is that subtle, to the point of insidiousness, rather than making the personal tweetstream a deluge of vanity.

Obviously I also don't like those who use it to spam via keywords... so offensive, and yet no way to effectively block these menaces. But that is another topic.

The problem I have in general with social networking is how it becomes ironic and self-defeating: people using it endlessly instead of getting out there and truly interacting, whereby they really would have something to write about. I think a good life should be so busy being lived that reports are sparse but fascinating, glimpses into a person that (crucially) leave those interested wanting more.

The trick of the next decade or so is going to be moderation and control of these new forms of communication. I, for many, am sick of seeing people of all ages (although mostly those 12-30) walking down the streets glued to their smartphones, so eager to stay in the loop they're not paying attention to the world around them and therefore missing important details or sights that are much more interesting than "just bought a new Gucci bag, OMFG it's sooooo nice!" from one of the silly little it girls who enjoy fleeting fame despite an obvious absence of talent or character.

I'm no scholar, but these are things I know. Basically more social networkers should follow Ebert's example and make their streams interesting and diverse, regardless of how many or how few individuals (i.e. not spambot touts) are following them. And never get too big-headed!

If I had the time, I would like to tweet haiku, but since I'm mostly interested in dance, I now tweet mostly about videos I've found. I use Google+ and simultaneously tweet and post of Facebook.

Besides dance, I also find things that I feel will interest or amuse my friends. It's sort of like sharing photos daily.

Some posts I make public and I've gotten a few followers and I hope they will also show me interesting things. The same with FB.

My artist and dancer friends share a lot of things I'm happy to watch/read.

I feel sorry for people who say there's nothing interesting on FB. I always think they need to get more interesting friends (or become more interesting).

Yeah, quotes and pithy sayings. @natashabadhwar and @edgarhopper are both really good for that, particularly as they mean them.

And me? Remember, Roger, when you said something to the effect I could be rich and famous for my various sayings? And then I said, no, 'cuz nobody gets them for years? So all that'll happen after I'm dead? Well...

My latest saying is "The ego is like a postcard from the soul."

Huh? Yeah? Eh? Eh? Isn't that good? Only ONE person RT'd it. Just one, if highly advanced, soul, who makes a darned good-looking postcard. Nobody else will get it until, generations from now, it'll be "someone once said..."

So it's back to lots of cussing.

Roger Ebert Wrote:
"Meaningless babble- An example: "Having Cinnamon Dolce Crème Frappuccino at Starbucks."

This sounds like Facebook.

If we can keep meaningless babble off Twitter, can we keep it off Facebook too?

As an internet professional, I have considered Facebook and Twitter a type of pollution on the web; similar, I would suspect, to a film critic opining on whether video games qualified as art. I find I must now rethink my opinion. I risk becoming a dinosaur at the age of 40, and risk shutting doors to wealth because of ignorance.

I'm going to set up a Twitter account.

Dear Roger,

You once used to write intelligent, snide, funny, insightful pieces about important (and not-so-important) movies. Now you shill for twitter, babble about your tiresome politics, and hype the "roger ebert" brand name ad nauseum. I'm actually worried that you're going to start a magazine and put yourself on the cover every month!!

Anyway, here's what I'm really curious about, and I hope you address these topics one day:

1. What are your book sales like? Maybe you can demystify the publishing numbers game by talking about your sales and the marketing of your book (which I frankly thought was stiff and overwritten in places--unlike your often entertaining reviews and blog posts).

2. Why are you so invested in injecting your politics into everything? It's so tedious. I share many of your views, but it's kind of irritating how you keep coming back to the same old topics. Find a new angle, at least. I mean, at this point, if a movie has some liberal agenda, and has some black people in it, then most of the time, you just give it a knee jerk positive review. (How is this different from the tea party radical types, who love everything conservative and ultra white-bread?? You're doing the same thing, in reverse.) It's like your politics have obscured your critical judgment.

3. Why not write a piece about what the young (ie insightful and snarky) Ebert would think of the current Ebert? I think the young Ebert would be appalled at the dreck that you praise (i only hope you get paid for some of your incredibly strange reviews of abysmal pictures!)

4. Why do you pimp for Ramin Bahrani so much, but so little for other filmmakers?? You would think that Bahrani and Herzog are the only directors that matter! (And I'm a huge fan of Herzog, but c'mon, you give him a pass on everything!) This is lazy thinking on your part. Bahrani is no more the future of cinema than David Gordon Green is. Bahrani will sell out and make a commercial movie that is abysmal... oh wait, I just checked imdb and saw that he is already in the process of doing so....

5. Your refusal to revisit past failures (such as your inexplicable review of BLUE VELVET) really puzzles me. You rarely admit that you were wrong. Why is that? I guess it's simply human nature and pride, but do you ever consider the damage your negative reviews do (to careers and lives) when they are way off base. I'm sure your rare after-the-fact reassessment of PLANES, TRAINS, AND AUTOMOBILES is of little comfort to the deceased John Hughes.

6. Your idea of a global liberal utopia is total fantasyland. The kind of fantasy dreamed up by a smart, self-made wealthy liberal who lives in splendid isolation. You seem to have little conception of what life is like for the majority of Americans. You have mastered the art of manufactured warmth, but I suspect that underneath is a cool customer indeed....

7. You mouth all the right things about Chaz, but I suspect she plays a far more crucial role in your life and career than even you care to admit (typical male). I'd love to hear more about her.

Roger, for someone with strong beliefs on most things your open mindedness impresses me, especially from one who once described himself as not too good with technology (in an old playboy interview with you and Gene where you claimed you could not program a VCR). To go from saying "I will never be a twit!" to proudly declaring yourself a twit - well, I find that kind of cool.

About your feud with video gamers - I would thank you first of all for throwing down the gauntlet of challenge to make Great Art. Some refinements in your argument had to be made, after all, a young child, a cat and a parrot can all make 'art' - but the idea that interactive media can become 'High Art' is a meme that sent ripples through the gaming community and we have you to thank for it.

If you haven't already, I suggest you replace your DVD and BD systems with an xbox 360 and ps3 - they are both excellent players and media servers. I would then call your attention to L.A. Noire, a game based on the movie L.A. Confidential:

"Using a brand new technology called MotionScan, L.A. Noire delivers pure performances from a talented group of actors. Every wrinkle, twitch, downward glance, grimace, and hard swallow is from an actor playing a part, not an animator manipulating things from behind the scenes. It's a striking, sometimes unnerving effect certain to help push video games closer to true cinematic experiences. It's easy to fall into old video game habits like checking your phone while listening to a line of dialogue, but you're setting yourself up for failure. The actors' tells are in their faces, their posture, their eyes – rarely is it revealed in what they say." - IGN

This opens up this type of game to the same respect you grant animated mo-cap movies like Polar Express, Beowulf and Avatar. If you now look back from the point of view of your acquired skill with computers and think programming a VCR is small potatoes, the intimidating look of a modern gaming controller should be relatively easy to master.

I'll try to make this the last time I harp at you regarding the Great Video Game Debate. No promises, though.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/116/1168417p1.html

I really wanted to attend the festival to see Refn's Driver. Luckily, I got to see it at my home theatre. I absolutely loved it, the style and the "cool" atmosphere. I couldn't help but think of Jean-Pierre Melville's, "Le Samourai." Driver is the American version of Jef Costello. Any thoughts?

Twittering is writing. You're a good writer, hence you send good tweets. Others may be less interesting or creative, but have info of significance. The biggest Twitter challenge, it seems to me, is one of time management/multitasking, an area in which you seem to be extremely talented. I am less confident in my own time management skills and have held off on Twitter -- a decision reinforced rather than changed by your blog and especially the resulting comments.

I keep up with a variety of blogs and have been involved with the internet for quite a long time, dating back to your CompuServe forum days.

I don't tweet.

What's the point? I'm just a regular person.

I would post the same thing every day: Got up, went to work, came home, went to bed.

But my life is wonderful, I am very happy and content in my job, with my husband, with our life. I haven't one iota of curiosity about other people's lives. Is this what happens at a certain age?

I'm a lucky woman.

For me, the difficulty with Twitter is I cannot write anything I want to communicate under less than 141 characters. See, I just proved the problem.

I don't have a Twitter account, so I follow you via bookmark. I just refresh the page.

I am glad to see you finding a voice any way that you can, but I am disappointed. As a follower of your blog from the beginning I find that you have favored Twitter over more introspective pieces on the blog. Perhaps I am wrong.

P.S. You won't be signing books near me anytime soon. Katrina ate my previously signed book. If I mail my book to you will sign it?

Twitter is essentially a trucated blog, which limits its usefulness. I prefer regular blogging, where I can be more expansive and expressive (even when most of the time no one is paying attention). Who cares; I am incrementally adding to facets of my memorial.

Hey Roger, is "Oneofus" actually Chaz in a bad mood trying to beat on you? Anyway the writing is far too clever to be Karl Heinz and his poopie-splattering.

Yeah, you beat-up old has-been, your writing stinks and there's not nearly enough of it!

Forgot what I came here to say. Oh, yeah. I've been writing this book for a long time, see. I left off three years ago. Just fixed my 'puter and found the ms. Not too bad.

But since Twitter, I now see I could trim about 35% of the verbiage. So it's really good exercise.

Oh no, Sylvia Robinson is gone. She was something to behold - way back when.

Sylvia - Pillow Talk
youtube.com/watch?v=_Xw1DDBFdFU

Twitter, along with Facebook, are services that I personally have no real interest in. While I have a Facebook account, I don't use it for the most part, and have only two or three friends who I'll see what's happening with. Despite the popularity and pervasiveness of the services, available on cellphones, "smart"phones, and portable devices like iPads, I have no desire to "twit" what I'm doing at the moment, or post the same on my Facebook wall (more of a small brick fence at the moment.)

Oddly, it is places like here along with other blog sites such as Achenblog (on the Washington Post) where I'll post my thoughts. These sites are more of a social gathering spot, a kind of virtual watering hole where those of us who are just ordinary folks occasionally rub shoulders with the cinematic and literary giants without really paying attention to whom we're talking with. The quality of the writing takes the place of the 140-character limit, where we tend to allow our thoughts to expand and expound without consciously realizing it. And it is that intelligence and competent conversation that keeps people here, attracts others to visit and stay for a while. You provide the arena in which those of us who post are given the opportunity, far more than a Twitter trail or a Facebook wall.

Perhaps Twitter and Facebook are for today's generation, but for those of us who enjoy long, rambling conversations, this is an oasis in the electronic desert.

Angie is 80. Damn. The greatest legs ever.

Roger since you use Twitter for looking at  political news,you should be interested to know that Twitter seems to have prevented #OccupyWallStreet from reaching a place at the top board for rising #tags.
Ive been tweeting against the Tea Party,retweeting their outrageous quotes and ideas. When I saw that the #OccupyWallStreet seems to have been censored, it got me wondering if the massive presence of complaints and bashing of the Tea Party  was actually dividing the country further and not a good use of time despite Congress in single digits & Obama carrying out Dubya 2.0.Also,when we we tweet about the Tea Party, aren't taking about assassination without judicial review of American citizens presidential powers expansion. We aren't talking about Obama not having a reactions to the multiple instances of young kids getting beaten by the NYPD  and the similar reports from Michigan. Earlier this year Pete Rock a very well known rapper from the 90s had a whole squad of violent NYPD spray mace inside a very very crowded album premier full of blacks and whites,young and old,American and tourist, but Obama only has a beer summit when a professor is harassed. 
Today,Bernie Sanders was talking about how Obama is allowing the big bailouts for financial institutions rather than breaking them down. As a result,shockingly, Sanders said the potential to have to bail out the top 6 banks AGAIN due to recent financial data from the 3rd quarter of 2010 that show they  now represent 64% of GDP. These are JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley.In 2006, before the financial crisis, that number was 55%. And fifteen years ago, it was 17%..............

Twitter is the ultimate communication tool for the US's new generation of ghoulish Marxist snotbags - a medium in which there is room only for snark.

Actually that's unfair, there's enough room after you've let some spittle fly about an "Astroturf" tea partier's sign being misspelled, just enough, to attach a little link to a pic of yourself at an SEIU protest holding one of 100,000 other identical, shiny, mass-produced pro-Obama signs to show how grass roots and spontaneous your movement is.

I'm not sure how useful it will be a couple of years into Obama's second term when Americans are too poor to afford internet access, but whatever...

Twitter minds and Facebook clueless followers to Occupy Wall Street - mindless drones who are manipulated to support a tax proposal backed by Oba-Wallstreet itself. The elite soros bankers control the puppet Hopenchange and the miseducated and lazy youth play their role of the useful idiots-

five easy pieces -

end the federal reserve
end derivative trading
end collateralized debt obligations
end fiat currency
end obama reign of terror

NEWS ALERT

Martha Stewart's daughter alleges in new book mom pee-peed with the bathroom door open. What!

Twit Alert!

Chris Christie to resign governorship to play Bruiser Bacala (Bobby's brother) in upcoming SOPRANOS movie. News conference TBA.

I have had no success at all in finding Twitter anything more than a borderline amusing distraction. I've been on Twitter for about a year exactly now and have amassed a whopping 1k tweets. I see people on my stream with 70k or more tweets and it blows my mind. Even if I tried to bore people with the most mundane details of my life, I doubt I could rack up such a score.

"I also dislike obscure spellings or abbreviations. They're fine for chatting, I suppose, but I vowed to tweet in ordinary language, not even using abbreviations, unless essential."

Amen! I find it exhausting to compress a thought worth sharing into 140 characters or less without hopelessly bastardizing the English language. But the alternative, looking like a 13 year old girl texting her girlfriends, is just unacceptable.

Mr. Ebert,

Will you be publicly endorsing Prince Frederic von Anhalt (Zsa Zsa's hubby) in his 2013 campaign for mayor of LA?

In a follow up question, his twitter account identifies him as "Prince of Germany." Are foreign royals even eligible to run for public office in California?

I don't tweet, twitter or twirl....I READ....and right now, Life Itself is
the best book I've read in years...not only for recreating my life at the U. of I. (I even visited Marajen Cinigo (pronounced CH) in Italy and on Sonora Drive) but for showing me my two favorite cities, London and Venice with so much more scope...Of course I love the movies and once tried to produce a show with Judith Crist, Peter Travers and Bruce Williamson...Judith and I still go to the movies on Sunday....and I often get out my Illio ('5l) and reminisce....Thank you for bringing back so many great memories....not the least, Steak 'n Shake.....Jan Morgan

Ebert: Please give Judy my best regards.

)...but for recreating Venice and London with your uncanny memory...Of course I love the movies...and I tried to get a show produced with Judith Crist, Peter Travers and Bruce Williamson...and today Judith and I go to the movies every Sunday.....I'm ten years your senior, and I can still taste Steak 'n Shake.....I love visiting my kids in Calif. and other family

often take down my Illio and

Ebert Error Update:

It was was not Poe but Ming the Merciless (Charles Middleton) who died in 1949. Born October,1874, he had played Poe on Broadway as a young man.

An honest mistake, chief.

The other night I was going through my DVR, catching up on some accumulated episodes of New Tricks, a BBC crime dramedy running on ch 20 on Saturday nights.

It's about UCOS, a unit of the London Metropolitan Police that investigates "Unsolved Crimes and Open Cases", hence its name. Its members are three retired coppers, supervised by a 40ish woman Superintendent.

The episode I'm referring begins with Brian Lane (Alun Armstrong), the one member with any kind of skill at computers, taking up Twitter. Brian's problem is that his would-be Tweets always come in two letters over the 140-character limit. It's frustrating, and Brian expresses this in the time-honoured British manner.
But his co-workers are getting equally frustrated watching him, and finally, the normally even-tempered Jack Halford (James Bolam) speaks out:

"i've been watching you at this all morning long, and your achievement at this can be summed up in six characters: SOD ALL!"

To which Brian quietly replies:
"Seven characters. You didn't count the space."

(For the non-British among you, "sod all" does not refer to gardening.)

This has been another example of why, should I ever get the opportunity to take up Twitter, I'll just let it pass, thank you very much.

Unpaid plugola:
New Tricks, Saturday night, 9 pm, Ch 20, Chicago.

Just noticed Mr. Ebert has over 540,000 twitter followers.

I have two, cousin Leon doing life at the Super Max and my undertaker.

Roger's tweet: A coyote on Main Street

You ain't seen nothin till you been to a stag party in downtown Estes Park.

Showdown in Elk Town
youtube.com/watch?v=794wEIbHlDc

I would like to announce today that I am coming out as a proud gynotikolobomassophile. I have had an insatiable urge to nibble women's earlobes since I was a wee lapling.

Thank you, and hope to nosh many of you at the next Ebertfest.

Tootie

The family was planning on attending the next EbertFest. However I must decline if there be any chance of Mrs. Dodgins' earlobes being nibbled or noshed by some nut named Tootie.

Ebert: Not on the tentative schedule.

Today is National Greasy Spoon Day.

Just celebrated by eating two McRibs (they're back) and a SuperFries. Am home now. Going to drop some nitroglycerin for desert.

>Roger

You tweet, "Who will be cast in the Grace Kelly biopic?" Then you don't let your posse in on who you like for the part. That don't seem kosher.

I'm going with Charlize Theron. There is a resemblance. She is a good age. She's tall, as was the princess. She has already given the best performance by an actress in this millennium. Her work in MONSTER is as good as any in any millennium for that matter.

JOURNAL NEWS TEAM UPDATE

Early reports indicate The Statue of Liberty and Bess Truman are equally excited about turning 125 today.

"Just How Big Is 7 Billion?" (CNN)

You could stretch 27 chains of human centipedes from the earth to the moon.

An UnGoogable Stumper.

I've searched all 88 Google pages of "Mayor Rahm" and there is not a single reference to any such personage other than Emanuel. I dare anyone to verify another 'Mayor Rahm' anywhere at anytime in the history of the world. Thank you.

Ebert: Time on your hands?

Dang! I missed this when it was posted -- but I did enjoy reading so many interesting comments here. Some very insightful overviews.

So maybe I'm too late, but one thing I noticed was folks complaining about Twitter censoring things. I suppose it could be called that, but it's not purposeful with regard to specific "undesirable" topics. Some time back they adopted an algorithm to keep topics like "Justin Bieber" from constantly trending -- so that once something had trended a while as a new topic, it could retire so that another, newer topic could take its place and provide variety.

I feel that Twitter could well "play out" after a time. It's lopsided, and sharing is (almost) only satisfying for those who can have a decent audience. I have near 200 followers, but I think most of them are hibernating -- so it's possible not a single soul actually sees whatever I tweet. So when I do, I figure it's mostly an exercise to think up a one-liner for my own amusement.

And those who have audiences, may well discover that the actual ENGAGEMENT only occurs with a small fraction of them (with a few major celebrities being possible exceptions). F'rinstance, I see Roger tweet out his "photos in need of captions" twice a day, and I participate there very regularly -- again, I think, probably for my own amusement -- and I usually notice only a few other people contributing. Half a million or so people have the chance to read and act on those tweets -- but only a very small percentage of them actually does so.

When the celebrities realize that they're not having such a great impact -- they'll stop tweeting so much. Then, fewer and fewer non-tweeting followers will check in to see what's being said... and you'll be left with mostly people promoting things to a non-reading "audience" of people with their own things to promote.

That's kind of what happened with MySpace. It's now filled with musicians promoting themselves to musicians who are promoting themselves.

But, I really hope I'm wrong about that and it'll be a nice source of amusement for years to come.

"The word 'fuck' and its derivatives are used 2,980 in "DEADWOOD." (IMDb trivia)

I love IMDb, but the site offers no definitive record information.

Google informs that FUCK(2005), the documentary, employed the word 824 times. SUMMER OF SAM(1995) edges out NIL BY MOUTH(1997) 435 to 428 in the movie category. But I can't confirm DEADWOOD holding the TV series record. Maybe the SOPRANOS? It was on longer. But I doubt it.

Is there a Master Googler out there that might help me out here?

Roger, here's one you may not know and will surely like. Fellini was a big fan of writer Frederic Brown. He had read and liked Brown's 1948 crime novel, "Screaming Mimi."

IMDb blogger,drspecter, makes a strong case that Fellini was so enamored with Anita Ekberg's work in the 1958 screaming screen version, he subsequently cast her in "La Dolce Vita."

Coincidentally both "Screaming Mimi" and 1959's "The Mummy" with Yvonne Furneaux recently aired on TCM.

Ebert: I'm an admirer of Fredric Brown, especially "The Lights in the Sky are Stars."

"When Is A Moth Like A Hummingbird?"

Very cool. And exciting too. Just wait till the moth gets blasted by clay cannonballs.

(A must see for those of you building flying robot thingamajigs)

sciencefriday.com/videos/watch/10413

William Lax, was born on this date in 1775. He was wrongly imprisoned in 1830 at Sing Sing. While working in the prison hospital, the famed inventor created Ex-Lax in 1839.

A later daguerreotype still echoes in his tortured mien the great man's personal agony following many years bravely battling chronic constipation. To this day, his legacy endures in the bowels of humanity worldwide.

flickr.com/photos/johnmcnab/3889762164

*Also contains the earliest known photo of an Ex-Lax tin

Ebert: Thanks for that, Beans!

Didn't send this before but reconsidered after reading your response to question posed in tweeted DVD INSIDER interview:

JACK AND JILL scores a 4 percentile on today's TomatoMeter. HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 registers a 28. Thus the former should be 7 times worse than the latter. If so, I can only pray the Good Lord, in all his divine magistracy, spares you from witnessing this debacle.

PS. As Katie Holmes joined Letterman the other night, Paul Schaffer played a few bars of this song I hadn't heard in years. It's one of those whose melody comes to mind now and again, but you just can't place the title. Maybe others similarly recall this great oldie from 1978...

Raydio - Jack And Jill
youtube.com/watch?v=WtiszcYlYMA&feature=related

Jodie Foster, Meg Ryan, and Charlie Kaufman are a combined 152 today. I am getting old.

Roger tweets the clueless Oxford Dictionary chooses a lame phrase, "squeezed middle," as their word of the year. The 'au courant' Merriam-Webster team picks the obvious best new word choice, "tweet." Duh. A 2011 Webster runner up choice with movie critic relevance is "bromance." This catchy lexeme could be cinematically defined as a any film featuring a character named Danny Ocean.

merriam-webster.com/newwords11.htm

Sorry to wander in off-topic, but - like Kristen above - I never realised you were a Pogo fan. As she notes, good taste. Did you ever read Alan Moore's homage to the strip during his Swamp Thing run a few years back? Strangely and wonderfully touching, even if the names were changed a bit. I'd recommend it.

On topic, I'm strangely stuck-in-the-mud for a twenty-something. Only got my blog two years ago, and never had a Facebook. Part of me makes some grand non-sensical principled objection that involves the words "personal interaction" and all that mumbo-jumbo. The other part of me just worries I'll get addicted eat up my time (and the time of the few unfortunates who accidentally follow me) tweeting and facebooking inane nonsense.

London couple names twin, Tweet(boy) and Twitter(girl).

TweetNews.net

Kirk Douglas is 95 today.

"It seems only now I know who I really am. My strength, my weaknesses, my jealousies - it's as if all of them had been boiling in a pot all these years, and as they boiled, they gradually evaporated into steam, all that's left in the end is your essence - the stuff you started with in the very beginning."

So I'm curious, if you really like a movie that I'd like to hear from you about, how do I go about getting a response:
for instance, I think that "It Happened On Fifth Avenue" is one of the best "forgotten" Christmas films. It packs quite a social punch with housing dilemmas, the super-rich verus, the super-poor, etc. and it reminds me of your recent opinion on the Occupy-Wallstreet movement. Let me know. Thanks!

After countless thousands film reviews, Mr. Ebert has managed only a single, stingy 4 star rating for a rodent movie EVER - "Ratatouille." There have been dozens of worthy endeavors involving the cute placental mammals made since the seminal "Steamboat Willie" debuted in 1928. He refuses to even see the melodious Chipmunks in their most recent cinematic outings. Could the famed critic suffer undiagnosed rodentia adversia?