In article ,
Jake wrote:

Hmm. Methinks that was a little above 140 characters :-) My point
about twitter is that it is inherently limited to semi-frivolous
uses for that reason alone. At best, it could be used to point
out a Web page.

Bypassing the 140 limit is easy.

By breaking its security or spewing out a sequence of minced-up
text? Neither attracts me - the latter because I have used several
such systems, and it's horrible to read. It gets REALLY horrible
when half a dozen people are doing it at once!

OTOH there's nothing wrong with
directing attention to a web page/blog where a discussion ensues.
Blogging is evolving and many blogs operate, in some senses, like URG.
Someone posts an opinion or something. Others respond. More and more
blogs are group efforts rather than simply individuals on an ego run.

Well, maybe. I have been involved with quite a number, since long
before they were called blogs. But they are far more attractive to
people with time to waste than those without, because of their
(lack of) structure. Newsgroups are bad enough.

Many posts here direct you to a web site (photo sharing for example)
and without first visiting that site discussion here would be
impossible.

There is a difference between providing reference material, and
requiring the discussion to be indirected.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.