sitting here ruing a lack of necessary funds to go out on a Friday night, I found myself doing a bit of unrewarding pub research, and looking at a few beer blogs. After a comment I made on a post about Public Relations, bloggers and blog types, (see P.R, and the lesser spotted blogger by Boak and Bailey ) they asked me if I was on Twitter.
As if to validate my claim that I am always last man to arrive in discussions, I contrived to miss this question, since I don't always remember to check up to see if anything I write generates a response. So how I am unsure of how best to give my answer.
Granted, I could reply to their comment, but in the uber fast world of beer blogging, that post is nearly 3 days old man! Its so last Wednesday! And since I fail to monitor my comments based on them being somewhat thin on the ground, I have to assume that they follow the same approach (but for radically opposite reasons)
Despite this I mulled over the phrasing of a response, and , having considered my never to be given answer I realised that there was a certain contradiction at work. My reason for not going on Twitter is a refusal to have to communicate in precisely the type of short, punchy style that makes B+B a good read*.
For the record my Twitter-unsuited answer would be:
" No, sorry, I am not on Twitter, because I would be sent daft trying to get my comments within the character limit. Besides, I enjoy the freedom to indulge in the type of reckless outpourings of slightly supercilious over-detailed reportage that my blog affords me. And whilst I crave interaction, I can't bear to suggest a theory or even pose a question without first dissecting it and then repeating it smothered in a cloying blanket of caveats, justifications and example similarities, which, is a self defeating strategy, as it then makes it much harder for people to comment on said idea"
Now compare the above outlook with a quote I read on a website that made me think I ought to have a look at B+B's blog (alas I can't recall the name of the site I read it on or the exact wording, so have recolluggested the content for your convenience) :
(unq) Boak and Bailey don't say very much but you can't help wanting to read them (unq)
So, I refuse to sign up to Twitter, yet a few lessons in editing or carefully selecting the most concise yet interesting ways of communicating ideas might make my blog more accessible. How we are mocked by the extent to which we understand ourselves, readers.
Example caveat 1 :
*(am not comparing their output to some of the text speak and dumbglish shorthand that I understand Twitter is famed for, rather the knack you would have to have to get across what you were saying well, but in the shortest possible way)