I will be the first to admit: I am not a technology junkie. Hell, I had to be badgered repeatedly to start this blog (which, by the view statistics and comment section, is looking more and more like a waste of time). I don’t have a DVR, I don’t have satellite radio or an I-phone, or even a data plan on the phone I do have. My home stereo system is circa 1992. But I do use the forms of technology which give me the most bang for my buck, and I use them extensively.
My other observation pertinent to this topic is the sound bite nature our culture has quickly become dominated by. If you can’t say it in 30 seconds or less, it isn’t worth saying, or so it would seem. I’ve observed this in some of my friends even. No time for an in-depth discussion of a complex topic. Too boring, too time-consuming, too not important to what happens to me in the next 30 minutes. It is, in my opinion, one of the prime reasons why we as Americans as a whole, do not comprehend nearly well enough the trouble this country is in economically and socio-economically, and the price we are going to pay for what has happened in the years ahead.
And then comes Twitter–the newest techno-gobbledygook to take the world by storm. For those who don’t know what Twitter is, it is essentially a social networking tool that allows you to blast out short messages to tell everyone on your list of followers what you’re doing at a given moment….all in 140 characters or less.
Aside from even a modestly funny twitter feed like that of actor Christopher Walkin, which may be fine for some needed comic relief, I can’t think of anything more useless than knowing what me, my friends, or my family are doing at any given moment in our absolutely regular and almost always unexciting lives.
“Some old blue hair is driving slow in the passing lane.”
“I’m farting on my brother’s face.”
“I just gagged after sticking a foot-long Slim Jim down my throat. I hate it when I do that.”
Seriously….dawwwwg…..no one freaking cares. It’s bad enough that people like me are narcissistic enough to have their own blogs on which to bloviate about any number of useless topics that virtually no one else cares about. But at least with a blog, you can flesh out an argument, have a discussion with commenters, or call for some kind of important change. Not so with Twitter. Twitter is just a wasteland of meandering thoughts of the moment, or useless updates about stuff no one actually cares much about, if at all. If I want that in my life I have stuff like text messaging, which seems to be the preferred method of instant communication amongst our youth anyway. Or instant messaging. Or email. Or that complete relic from the neo-Jurassic: the phone call. Because truly, is there anything going on in your life that you either can’t wait to tell someone until later, or do it via one of the commonly available other methods of communication currently in widespread use?
Oh yes, I am ever the “fuddy duddy” now aren’t I. Because I don’t embrace a new tech tool simply because it’s new, and that can do what any number of other tools can already do, and that has little or no real use in anyone’s world except for Rick Sanchez, the CNN anchor who has latched on to Twitter in order to try and save his incredibly inane and boring mid-afternoon timeslot on CNN. Rick is a Twitter user alright. Actually, Rick Sanchez is just a twit.
Probably the best and funniest summary of twitter can be seen in this super snarky but right-on YouTube video:
So what do you think of Twitter? Is it a mega-useful tool of the engaged, or just another useless toy in the sea of gadgety guffaws? Let me know what you think.
Update:
In addition to the problems of having fake Twitterers like the scoundrel or scoundrels representing Keith Olbermann (when Keith in fact does NOT Twitter), there is the danger of some kind of caste system taking root as people race to find ways to build up their follower lists in order to increase their perception of relevance amongst those they wish to court.
Here is CNET’s views of Twitter, both against it and for it. Frankly, even the “for it” column sounds like an “against it” column to me.
Update 2:
As if to prove my point, here is a fresh-out-of-the-oven article about twitterers’ reactions to the moment of tension between CNN’s Ed Henry and President Obama during last night’s nationally televised press conference.
“Obama slams CNN dufus…”
“Daaaamn CNN’s Ed Henry got roasted!”
“CNN/Ed Henry you got spanked. Deal with it.”
Scintillating stuff……Vital……..Interesting……
Can I please get back the 2 minutes I wasted reading those tweets….I coulda been processing my just-eaten sausage mcmuffin instead.
Nice post. Fag. Just kidding. But cereal, I agree with the post and find myself not twitting but to actually communicate with others. Facebook is becoming more and more Twitter-like especially with it’s new “Look” *see Twitter*
One thing these social tools do IS connect others where it was nigh impossible to do so without doing hours of research *see Stalking* In my social defense I DO call people, I Don’t text, of which Texting seems MORE pointless than twittering…the only redeeming quality on texting is if you are physically unable to ‘talk’. I have a iTouch but not a iPhone..my phone is 4 years old…talk about archaic.
Keep posting on your blog Doug and I’ll keep reading and if you don’t mind I’d like to link you on mine (gaming blog..)
Cheers and Salutations!
NK
By: WookieLuv on March 24, 2009
at 2:08 am
Heh, I figured you’d be a twitting fool knowing your techniness. Glad to hear you actually do it the old fashioned way (stalking). It’s so much more gratifying (I hear) than this faceless twitting stuff. I’ll check out the gaming blog, even though I try hard to stay away from gaming due to my tendency to become addicted to such things due to my inherent competitiveness.
By: tonka2lips on March 24, 2009
at 2:29 am
First of all, I love the video. I saw it a couple of days ago and laughed my ass off.
You seem to have a “firm grasp” of the worst the “tool” has to offer. I suppose you formed that opinion by reading about what others have said or watching really funny videos.
I mean what other opinion can you have? You’re not on Twitter. You’ve never used it. You really have no idea how interesting or vital it really is, do you?
And the links you provided were written almost two years ago, a mere months after twitter was launched. Much has happened since then. And in an ironic twist of fate, Elinor Mills, the CNET writer you linked to who argued against it, is now on twitter.
http://twitter.com/elinormills
And on March 5th she “tweeted” the following:
“An inner-city SF Walgreens is, no kidding, locking up its high-end toothbrushes to protect against theft. We’re talking $2-$5 items. WTF?!”
Perhaps now she can better “understand the need to spew out personal information and random thoughts to the world.”
Be careful about casting derision on things you don’t understand, because only when you start using them can you really start to see if they’re “interesting” or “vital.” And you might have more credibility with those you hope to influence.
By: Banky on March 24, 2009
at 2:53 pm
The video was funny….The people who make stuff like that sure do have a lot of creativity.
I never said I had a “firm grasp” regarding Twitter, you did. I have an opinion of it, but that does not necessarily mean I think I have a firm grasp. It isn’t exactly a rocket science, though, is it Vince? Is Twitter really that complex that only by prolonged participation in it can one understand it’s basic functionality and usage? Because that’s what I was writing about. Can one not read articles about it, listen to both people who use it and those who don’t like it, and compare it to other forms of communication in order to develop an informed opinion of it? How else does one determine if any product is something that might be for them? If I go and inspect a car I’m considering buying that looks like junk and sounds like junk, do I always have to drive it for two hours to realize that it is junk? Usually not. I read several articles about it, read what several bloggers thought about it, and considered what several media people I follow thought about it. Your use of the term “firm grasp” in quotation marks and derisive allusion to the funny video I included in order to make me sound ignorant about the subject simply because I don’t use it is rather insulting and sounds arrogant. One doesn’t always need to see the coils glowing red to know how a stove functions.
What other opinion could I have? I could think it’s “vital” or “interesting.” I don’t have an internet data plan on my phone, but I think that’s a hugely more useful, interesting, and vital tool than Twitter. It has a million more uses and benefits than Twitter. Yet I don’t have it, either. I have thus far made a decision that its usefulness to me and my lifestyle doesn’t yet justify the extra cost. Is my opinion of that invalidated in your eyes as well, or is that opinion ok because it agrees with you?
Please explain to me how Twitter is “vital” from a social networking or general usefulness standpoint. What does it do that other forms of communication cannot already do? What can possibly be “vital” in 140 characters? What can you possibly “tweet” me that I cannot get from you via a text, phone call, or email, all of which are virtually instant as well? What do I really need to blast out to everyone on my follower list that is so “vital” that they all need to know it right then? Is it “vital” for me to be up to date on everyone’s daily minutia that I know and care about at any given moment? Is it necessary for them to be up to date on me at all times in 140 characters or less? Why would I want such an intrusion of minutia on my life, or on the lives of others? Must we all be such exhibitionists at all times now? Is that the new “hip?” It kind of reminds me of Al Franken’s old SNL Stuart Smalley skit, “Daily Affirmation.” I can certainly understand the slight amount of novelty/humor Twitter can provide, but when all is said and done, what does it really lend to anything? I’m sure you understand the technical underpinnings of it far far better than I, but I’m talking about it from a social networking and general usefulness standpoint, not a technical one.
You are correct that the CNET articles were from some time ago, but I used them because it was the only place I found a reasonably concise and easy to understand “Pro vs Con” discussion of Twitter. Most of the other articles were from geek publications and websites discussing its “platform” and other technical stuff that was not the point of my post.
As for the fact that the writer is now on Twitter, it is not surprising since the mainstream media is one of the few (if not only) industries where it is in widespread use, and that has a lot to do with them trying to find ways to stay relevant given the rise of better journalism through non-traditional media like blogs, websites, webcasts, podcasts and the like. Rick Sanchez of CNN is the Twitter poster boy in the media, and he’s about as idiotic and inane as they get in the news. That’s no reflection on Twitter, of course, but it’s a tool he’s grasped onto in order to try and inject some kind of relevance into his little-watched segments on CNN.
Interestingly, your quote of Ellinor Mills about Wal-Greens proves exactly my point about the typical use and thus uselessness of Twitter. Who in the freakin’ hell cares what Wal-Greens is doing with their toothbrushes? What is “vital” about that? Do I or most people want to waste time reading or responding to that type of random junk all the time? Maybe you do, but I don’t.
I welcome you to make the case otherwise, but I see Twitter as the late ’80s/early ’90s version of the pager, or maybe like the Sony minidisc player. Only time will tell.
By: tonka2lips on March 24, 2009
at 4:49 pm
Well first of all, I did like the video. No foolin. Funny stuff.
And it’s funny because there’s truth in it. But I would bet dollars to donuts that the people who made the video are probably on Twitter. Just like Elinor Mills. And you may think she proved your point, but that just proves mine . . . again.
She was once an opponent of Twitter but almost two years later made a post about something inane that she criticized doing in mid 2007. What changed? Well one thing that changed is that she actually USED the tool and, for better or worse, has a better understanding of it. And for whatever reason it made sense for her to tweet something that, while inane, is also innocuous and may be of passing interest to someone who is following her. Why do people say inane but innocuous things at a cocktail party? To start a conversation perhaps.
But it does bug me that you post about it being non-interesting or non-vital when you really know nothing about it.
If you are sincerely interested in my thoughts on the benefits of Twitter, I’ll blog about it and post the link here.
And some cars you might have to drive for two hours to know that its junk. And in the case of understanding twitter, blogging, or other Social Media tools, two hours wouldn’t be nearly enough time.
By: Banky on March 25, 2009
at 12:42 am
You’re probably right that the people who made the video are on Twitter. After all, they’ve probably experienced first hand everything they’ve talked about. Which, ironically, just reinforces my point about Twitter’s inanity. If people like that who use it think this way enough to make a video about it, and hundreds of thousands of others have viewed that video, there must be more than just a little truth to it.
Ellinor Mills did prove my point. Exactly. She covered the topic as part of her job. It was assigned to her by her boss. She initially didn’t see the use for it. She’s in the media, and as I’ve clearly already stated, the media is one of, if not the, biggest user of Twitter, thus she has more of a work-related reason to use it, since she’s part of BOTH the techy arena and the media arena. I think it’s pretty arrogant, once again, of you to assume I don’t see these things and can’t make reasonable assumptions from them. The fact she uses it in an inane and useless way perfectly proves my point about its value and does not at all prove your point that it is vital and interesting. I don’t think a singular tweet from her 2 years later proves that she finds it either vital or useful. If anything it suggests the opposite.
I really don’t appreciate your repeatedly arrogant and condescending comment that I know nothing about it, even though I stated clearly what I’ve done to educate myself about it, plus the fact I wrote about it from a social networking standpoint and not a technical standpoint. I never said I was the expert, or that I knew more about it than you. I’m sure I don’t, but it doesn’t mean I know nothing about it, so try and curtail the superiority vibe. Your opinion of Twitter isn’t the only one out there, and my opinion of it is shared by lots and LOTS of other people, just as yours is. I’ve stated plainly the reasons why I think it isn’t worthy. But I’ll ask again since you ignored my questions the first time: What is so “rocket science” about Twitter, Vince? What exactly am I so far off base about? What is so deeply meaningful and vital about 140 character blasts to everyone you know? So far you’ve said not a single thing which convinces me of anything as it relates to Twitter. All you’ve said is how ignorant and silly I am for daring to have an opinion of something I know of, have read about, and have listened to others who I trust who’ve used it, but haven’t personally tried. How is it any different than sending a text message to your contact list like Ben does before his poker games? Please educate me and the rest of the stupid and unwashed non-Twittering masses. Show me how Twitter isn’t just another “look at me” self-affirmation toy that does the same things as texts, IMs, or emails. Maybe you need to allow for the fact that not everyone needs or wants to be incessantly “in touch” with anyone and everyone he/she knows, might know, or knows that someone else knows, every moment of the day.
As for cars, if one cannot tell a car is junk after two hours, one either a) doesn’t know what one is doing, or b) the car isn’t junk to begin with but breaks and becomes junk. Of course there are rare exceptions to the rule (known as lemons), but not many.
By: tonka2lips on March 25, 2009
at 3:55 am
RE: Ms. Mills — She proves my point because she reversed a previous bias, and you really can’t begin to understand why because she has used the tool for almost two years and you . . . well . . . haven’t.
It’s not Rocket Science Mr. 2lips. But there is more than meets the eye . . . and that’s how, not being on twitter, or using it for a period of time makes your ignorance show.
I didn’t take on the job to prove Twitter was interesting and vital. My point is this:
All you’ve read is the negative side of twitter, and that, combined with your bias against these “newfangled contraptions,” you’ve discounted something before you’ve even tried it. And worse yet, you posted something — deriding it — with only a cursory understanding.
Imagine I posted the following, “Could the 1987 Buick Grand National be a more pathetic or crazy example of a classic muscle car?” You’d think I was pretty ignorant I bet. And I would be.
If you don’t want to wait for my blog post, go read Shel’s latest:
http://blog.holtz.com/index.php/weblog/twitter_gateway_to_substantive_content/
By: Banky on March 25, 2009
at 2:33 pm
Vincent Van VoorVart the Vorth:
1) Just because you’ve shown that Ms. Mills has used Twitter……once…..in the past 2 years is NOT convincing evidence she’s done some 180 degree reversal on her thoughts about Twitter. She’s been asked to write about it….it’s a tool in the industry she writes for……it’s the latest “hip thang” being used in the media that she is also a part of. It is going to be around her whether she chooses to use it or not. People who don’t smoke who hang out in bars still smell like smoke, and may even take a drag off someone else’s cig in a moment of drunken daring, but it doesn’t mean they are smokers. (You on the other hand, are a pole smoker, and I can prove it! heh) For her to have infrequently used it since her article is neither surprising nor telling. She’s never (to my knowledge) wrote gushingly about it. She’s clearly proven my point via her referenced ‘tweet’ about it’s use not being anything special or particularly useful or interesting. Why is it you cannot recognize any of that? Me thinks you doth protest too much due to your inherent gadgetyness and torrid love affair with everything Twittery.
2) If there’s so much “more to it” than that, then “Where’s the beef?” How is it so much more special than existing forms of communication commonly used and available? Does my example in Update 2 not speak volumes to how it is most typically used? Don’t just say it’s so and then call ME ignorant when I’m the only one in this debate providing examples and arguments, provide some back up. Otherwise, it is only you who sounds ignorant.
3) How do you know all I’ve read is the negative side of Twitter? Were you looking over my shoulder when I was researching this? I read your previous blog posts about it. I read 3 or 4 geek articles about it from a technical standpoint, and I read lots of other blogposts from people who thought it was great. All of that in addition to the “not a fan” pieces. Just because I didn’t explicity include that in my short blog post doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Although I know in your worldview and preconceived notions it’s simply not possible for someone like me with strong opinions to possibly ever (in a million years) read a variety of sources and opinions before reaching a conclusion, but I think looking at the arguments so far, that is plainly not true.
4) I beg to differ that I am biased against new fangled contraptions. I simply don’t swallow the manufactured needs hook, line, and sinker, created by tech companies via their constant bombardment advertising. I wait to see how it might actually be useful and how others use it before making such decisions. It probably doesn’t even register with you that I was one of the very first car dealers to operate exclusively over the internet. And, I would wager a large sum I was THE first classic car dealer to be internet only. But, yeah, I hate new fangled things. If we want to go that “labelistic” route, one could easily say that you are the type to all but pee your pants when something…..ANYthing, new is announced and run out and wait in line to buy it regardless of whether you need it or not. One could also say you use such things as status symbols, as “hipness” markers, in order to display and affirm how cool/important you want others to think of you. It’s your version of the 80s/90s era BMW as the status symbol of choice.
5) If you said the 87 GN was pathetic or crazy or whatever, I’d tell you to back it up, like I’m telling you to do now about Twitter. Only problem is you’re not doing it. I know I’d be right there to show you how it was rated the fastest production car in America. It’d be easy. With Twitter, I’m afraid it’s not, cuz there isn’t much there in terms of something truly unique, substantial, or “vital.”
I’ll read your link a bit later. Going to a biz lunch with someone I met, ironically enough, playing poker.
By: tonka2lips on March 25, 2009
at 4:37 pm
My gathering from these replies is that Doug wants to be a TOP but rather Vince is the TOP wanting to be the BOTTOM but can’t get past the trust issues. However, I cannot see Doug ever being the BOTTOM…unless he was super drunk.
Maybe it’s Me.
I’ve come across the idea that if one doesn’t experience (insert job, experience, tangible, intangible, environment etc.) that one cannot have an opinion on (insert subject matter). I believe that’s true in many cases especially being a Parent.
As with the cliche of ‘walking in one’s shoes..’ does have it’s merit. In D’s case I don’t believe it applies since the post and it’s subsequent replies are sounding more like angst on Banky’s ability to condescend in the medium of text. Back on topic is whether or not Twitter has value as a viable social medium, being that what you consider viable maybe different to others. In V’s case it is as he doesn’t have time to call someone on the phone with whom he has more than sex with. I don’t. Sorta. He’s busy. So are you D. You simply choose to communicate in another medium.
I find it much easier in my communication to email vs. text. My chain of command for getting a point across goes from face to face, phone, email to leaving a msg. Tweeting for me, personally is akin to talking about the weather. It’s a simple way to say “Hi I am validating you, would you validate me too?” and to those I Tweet to it’s also a virtual handshake, pat on the back, poke…to say “HELLO!”. I find that very cool indeed. Do I think it’s essential? Yes I do. Especially if those on Twitter chose that as their main venue for communicating. example.
If I wanted to call V I could but odds are 3:1 that I’d get a voice mail or he’d reply with “I gotta go, ttyl”. Now If I posted a Tweet directly to him I KNOW he will read it within an hour or less. If I email him maybe quicker. Point is I do roll with the times in all aspects of life: media, communication, sex positions and latest combo in Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe (Captain Marvel ROXX). I respect D’s decision to set himself apart and unplug from media outlets and also respect the unexperienced disdain he has posed about Twitter in general. I think the use of Twitter in D’s world hasn’t come around to him yet. I bet if you followed people in your business (cars) you’d tweet like a mofo, especially if you sold cars through Tweeting.
God Bless You Both. This reminds me of us posting on the KCSingles forums.
By: WookieLuv on March 25, 2009
at 4:16 pm
Good reply, Nick. Enjoyed your perspective.
By: tonka2lips on March 25, 2009
at 8:35 pm
btw: I added your blog to my blog roll. Hope you don’t mind….you may garner +2 views from it.
http://theoldschool.wordpress.com/
By: WookieLuv on March 25, 2009
at 4:22 pm
In the past month, Elinor Mills, tweeted the following:
to inform:
Irony of ironies- Kevin Mitnick can’t prove to Facebook he is the real famed hacker: (with link to article)
to connect:
@xTONYxHOOLIGANx I’m following you because you are in the security field. What do you do?
to gather information:
quick poll: why are you following me? what do you want me to tweet about? just curious
At worst, she’s testing whether its interesting or vital. At best, she finds it interesting or vital whether personally or for her job.
For benefits, see the following:
http://www.twestival.com raised over 250,000 for Charity:Water. This was all grass roots started on twitter.
http://www.lightthread.com I met or reconnected with two of my business partners as a result of twitter.
http://socialmediaclubkc.ning.com/ is a gathering of those who meet regularly to talk shop about what’s going on in Social Media.
I regularly meet people offline through Twitter, most recently at First Fridays in early March. @kayhaswings @jenningspr @wrytir @elmoglick @bonnieglick @princessofworld @joey96 or even last week when I met @noblerot and @logtar for lunch.
All done offline but all began because of Twitter.
So I’ve benefited personally, professionally and I’ve helped do something nice for the world.
Pretty interesting and vital I’d say. You really wouldn’t need me or anyone else tell you this though, as you could find it out for yourself. Just sign up for an account. It is free you know.
But it does strike me that I didn’t answer your first question. Is there a social media tool less interesting or vital? Myspace. But you really couldn’t know that at this point.
If you’re not convinced of the benefits or your ignorance at this point, I’ll just confine you to being the equivalent of some old man who only comes outside to shake his fist and yell at the kids with digital planned cell-phones to get off his lawn and they don’t really need those infernal machines.
And also, just in case you didn’t know, The Internet is more than a series of tubes.
By: Banky on March 25, 2009
at 5:24 pm
Re: Elinor Mills
She recently tweeted the following within the last month:
To inform:
Irony of ironies- Kevin Mitnick can’t prove to Facebook he is the real famed hacker: (link to post)
To connect:
@xTONYxHOOLIGANx I’m following you because you are in the security field. What do you do?
To gather info:
quick poll: why are you following me? what do you want me to tweet about? just curious
At worst, she is testing whether Twitter is interesting or vital, either for her job or personally. At best, she thinks its interesting or vital
For benefits see the following:
Twestival:
http://www.twestival.com recently raised over 250,000 for Charity: Water. This was a grassroots campaign started on twitter.
The Obama campaign
This businessweek article suggests that Obama used twitter more effectively than Hillary Clinton. Obama regularly used twitter to highlight where he was at, to get out the vote and solicit donations to various causes.
http://www.lighttread.com I either met or reconnected with two of my business partners through Twitter.
SocialMediaClub KC
http://socialmediaclubkc.ning.com/ This is a group that largely connected via twitter and meets once a month to talk shop about what is happening and current in social media.
I connect with people offline and found friends: Just last week I met two people through lunch via twitter and earlier this month, at First Fridays, I met people who I met almost exclusively through twitter @kayhaswings, @wrytir, @elmoglick, @bonnieglick, @princessofworld, @joey96, @jenningspr
So I’ve benefited personally, professionally and helped the world a little bit.
All this was there for you to find out for yourself if you’d just sign up for an account. It’s free you know. And at this point, if you’re no longer convinced, I’ll just resign that you are the equivalent of some old man who comes out to his porch for no other reason than to yell at all the digital-planned twittering cell-phoned kids to get off his lawn. And to that I’d just remind you that, also, the Internet more than a series of tubes.
By: Banky on March 25, 2009
at 5:57 pm
Business Week article:
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2008/06/why_clinton_los.html
By: Banky on March 25, 2009
at 5:58 pm
I think it’s worth pointing out in the article you cite that the main reason Obama got so many followers via Twitter vs Clinton was because the BO campaign agreed to become a follower of anyone who signed up with them while the Clinton campaign did not. Kinda sounds like the old “quid pro quo” issue I referenced in the article I cited in my original post about the dangers of Twitter becoming a popularity contest much like how MySpace did re: the number of friends you could accumulate in order to show the world how popular you were.
As for the rest of your other comment, I suppose I could respond to each of your assertions and agree with some of them and disagree with others. But, as long as I don’t become fully “convinced” and hold the same opinion as you (because only those who are enlightened and in the know agree with whatever Vince holds to be truth, while all others are merely out-of-the-loop-kid-yeller-atters who are so ignorant that they can’t possibly know anything about the subject), I can only be the old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn. Gotta love that George Bushian binary argumentation: “You’re either with us, or your with the terrorists.” “You either believe Twitter is awesome, vital, and interesting, or you are an ignorant slobbering old man who yells at kids on his lawn.”
In the final analysis, I can certainly see how someone like you and in your position finds it useful. However, I don’t think anywhere close to the majority of users use it to the extent you do or will, and given that and it’s ’sound byte’ limitations and a plethora of similar communication tools already available and in widespread use, still see it as “the pager of the future.”
Signed,
Guy-with-his-own-3G phone,-laptop,-blog,-Facebook page,-LinkedIn page,-Myspace page,-dedicated business website,-and-who-met-both-his-ex-wife-and- -current-significant-other-via-the-internet,-but-who-is-still-obviously-afraid-of-fancy-new-contraptions-according-to-certain-of-his-friends.
By: tonka2lips on March 25, 2009
at 9:17 pm