I hope so as I am not on any of those. The other day at a meeting of the U3A (courses for people over 60) we had a lecture on the history of computing. The speaker who is conservator of computers at the local Museum asked who used social networks and in a room of nearly 100 there were only a few hands and he (probably in his 40's) admitted he did not. Several people stated they did not even own a computer. Most of my real life friends who do own computers tell me they only check their email every few days.
Brian, the question is, of course, tongue-in-cheek. The only reason I'm on Facebook is because it seems to be the best way to keep in touch with family and friends. Some will answer a message on FB faster than they will answer the phone or an email message. These days, hardly anyone answers the phone on the first try.
I started on FB to keep up with our kids. I like it -- but can't get into Twitter except when some news I want to follow is happening. I still like reading blogs.
I debuted this post on Facebook and made a spelling mistake, which I carried over here, because I copied and pasted. I corrected the misspelling here, but I can't at FB, because I'd have to delete the entire post and lose the comments. For a person whose habit seems to be 'Publish first; edit after,' FB doesn't work well for me.
If one approaches FB from a solipsistic philosophy to begin with then you know that FB etc. don't exist either and participation is fairly equitable on that score.
PS These days they're saying Einstein's theory of relativity was wrong, but what they don't realise is that he was speaking bolatively, rather than relatively, due to having been at the single malt that evening.
True Mimi, especially because when one speaks bolatively one generally forgets what one has said the following day, but Einstein could remember his words, which is the real reason they gave him the Nobel Prize. Little known fact.
I hope so as I am not on any of those. The other day at a meeting of the U3A (courses for people over 60) we had a lecture on the history of computing. The speaker who is conservator of computers at the local Museum asked who used social networks and in a room of nearly 100 there were only a few hands and he (probably in his 40's) admitted he did not. Several people stated they did not even own a computer. Most of my real life friends who do own computers tell me they only check their email every few days.
ReplyDeleteBrian, the question is, of course, tongue-in-cheek. The only reason I'm on Facebook is because it seems to be the best way to keep in touch with family and friends. Some will answer a message on FB faster than they will answer the phone or an email message. These days, hardly anyone answers the phone on the first try.
ReplyDeleteI started on FB to keep up with our kids. I like it -- but can't get into Twitter except when some news I want to follow is happening. I still like reading blogs.
ReplyDeleteI debuted this post on Facebook and made a spelling mistake, which I carried over here, because I copied and pasted. I corrected the misspelling here, but I can't at FB, because I'd have to delete the entire post and lose the comments. For a person whose habit seems to be 'Publish first; edit after,' FB doesn't work well for me.
ReplyDeleteI'm not convinced Brian exists. I suspect him of really being a nubile young blonde lady called Darleen.
ReplyDeleteYou can edit -- if you click the x beside the post (have to do it just after you post tho)
ReplyDeleteYou exist. In the great library of creation, you are in the historic relics section.
ReplyDeleteFWIW
jimB
Ann, most often I discover my mistake long after the grace period.
ReplyDeleteJim, is your statement generic or specifically about me? ;-)
"I'm not convinced Brian exists. I suspect him of really being a nubile young blonde lady called Darleen."
ReplyDelete:-)
It seems my wife doesn't exist either. There's some good news for the conservative parts of the church in there somewhere :-)
ReplyDeleteNo.
ReplyDeleteAnd I like it that way.
Been working toward this state for most of my life. Ah, the salvation of technology!
;-)
Existence is overrated, anyway.
ReplyDeleteErika, it must be quite an experience to live with a non-existent wife.
ReplyDeleteAnd I find it more than little strange that non-existent persons leave comments to my blog.
Existence is overrated, anyway.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly can't be proven (Kierkegaard!).
;-)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLet me try that again:
ReplyDeleteAnd I find it more than little strange that non-existent persons leave comments to my blog.
Are you sure we aren't Turing tests?
:-)
Are you sure we aren't Turing tests?
ReplyDeleteAlas! I've been found out.
The things I learn on this blog. Turing test- hmmm.
ReplyDeleteIf one approaches FB from a solipsistic philosophy to begin with then you know that FB etc. don't exist either and participation is fairly equitable on that score.
ReplyDeleteDeep thought, theme, and from the approach you suggest, participation is indeed equitable.
ReplyDeleteShall I gather the question and the brilliant commentary here and work them into an essay to be published in a learned journal of philosophy?
...and why not? The WV on this message even sounds like an intersting theoretical concept.
ReplyDelete'bolative'
...and why not?
ReplyDeleteAnother brilliant question! And surely, there's a way to work 'bolative' into the essay. I can always make up something.
Mimi's General Theory of Bolativity. Existence = [Minutes spent on Facebook] x [Cranium shrinkage] (squared).
ReplyDeleteBolativity = degree of bollocksness.
Excellent, Cathy. Is your equation philosophy or science, or a little of both?
ReplyDeleteOn the way home from dropping my grandson off after school, I wondered what folks with no sense of play think about Wounded Bird.
I dunno, but doesn't "bolativity" have to do with the digestive process (cf. bolus) rather than communication theory?
ReplyDeletewv = subco
basic entity in the underground economy
Oh Paul (A.), let's not go there. Please!
ReplyDeleteDo the subcos incorporate?
They can be sole proprietorships, but not corporations sole.
ReplyDeleteOh. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI don't exist (object set apart from the background).
ReplyDeleteI am part of the All.
[Now, there's a bit of philosophy you won't find on FB or Twitter...because I'm not a part of Them! ;-p]
I am all of the Part.
ReplyDeleteSo there!
Paul (A.) wins. Or does he?? ...
ReplyDeletePS These days they're saying Einstein's theory of relativity was wrong, but what they don't realise is that he was speaking bolatively, rather than relatively, due to having been at the single malt that evening.
Cathy, you're right; when one speaks bolatively, one's words always have retractability.
ReplyDeleteTrue Mimi, especially because when one speaks bolatively one generally forgets what one has said the following day, but Einstein could remember his words, which is the real reason they gave him the Nobel Prize. Little known fact.
ReplyDeleteI thought he got the Nobel for the photoelectric effect, not special relativity.
ReplyDeletewv = sosored
light with wavelength of 650 nm
Paul (A.), you are correct, which makes you a sosored - a shining light, or a wavelength, or something.
ReplyDelete