JSH: Perfect tweet, can it be re-done?
JSH
grammatical, which defines itself. Can that accomplishment be
matched?
Here it is, the perfect tweet:
In my opinion, crucial criteria for a perfect tweet is that it be
EXACTLY 140 characters, have few if any abbreviations, and is
grammatical.
Question is, and I leave off quotes as that adds to the tweet so that
sentence is itself the perfect tweet, can that accomplishment be
matched? Can you write another tweet that defines itself as a perfect
tweet by those rules which is itself a perfect tweet?
Seems to me one option for attack would be to find synonyms of the
same length for any of the words. Otherwise it's a matter of finding
combinations with the same meaning where it MAY be impossible in the
English language.
So it's a challenge. Go for it.
James Harris
Rotwang
> I posted a perfect tweet today, defined to be 140 characters that is
> grammatical, which defines itself. Can that accomplishment be
> matched?
>
> Here it is, the perfect tweet:
>
> In my opinion, crucial criteria for a perfect tweet is that it be
> EXACTLY 140 characters, have few if any abbreviations, and is
> grammatical.
The word "criteria" is plural. So as written your "perfect tweet" is
ungrammatical - it should either read "criteria [...] are" or
"criterion [...] is".
JSH
I give 3 criteria: be exactly 140 characters, have few if any
abbreviations and is grammatical.
That is plural so my usage is correct.
Try again.
___JSH
Rotwang
But you also use the verb "is", which is singular, although the
subject of your clause is plural. So your usage is incorrect.
JSH
Criteria can be taken as a set, but a set can have more than one
element, so the tweet is still grammatical.
Try again.
___JSH
Rotwang
Then you should have written "the set of crucial criteria [...] is".
But you didn't. You wrote "crucial criteria [...] is". So the tweet is
still ungrammatical.
Mark Murray
> Criteria can be taken as a set, but a set can have more than one
> element, so the tweet is still grammatical.
Redefine reality as much as you like. No reason to stop now.
> Try again.
It was a darn good effort. The error, while annoying, is far from
insoluble. Don't give up yet.
M
JSH
> JSH wrote:
> > Criteria can be taken as a set, but a set can have more than one
> > element, so the tweet is still grammatical.
>
> Redefine reality as much as you like. No reason to stop now.
Criteria is plural but as a noun is a set.
Consider the following:
The criteria are rigid.
That is awkward and goes to current usage versus what may be rigidly
considered correct based on the original Latin.
> > Try again.
>
> It was a darn good effort. The error, while annoying, is far from
> insoluble. Don't give up yet.
>
> M
I think it's a grammatical point which is arguable as the English
language has variability here.
James Harris
JSH
By standard usage criteria is considered to be a set of criterion.
The word "criterion" has fallen out of standard usage.
The sentence:
"The criteria are valid."
Is awkward.
Grammarians!!! Please speak up here!!!
I know I have a lot of people in England who follow, opinions please?
James Harris
JSH
To lock down this variant however:
In my opinion crucial criteria for a perfect tweet are that it be
EXACTLY 140 characters, have few if any abbreviations, and is
grammatical.
That is ONLY to remove challengers on this issue who argue the
grammatical point.
James Harris
Mark Murray
> On Jul 5, 2:21 pm, Mark Murray <w.h.o...@example.com> wrote:
>> JSH wrote:
>>> Criteria can be taken as a set, but a set can have more than one
>>> element, so the tweet is still grammatical.
>> Redefine reality as much as you like. No reason to stop now.
>
> Criteria is plural but as a noun is a set.
It is a plural noun according to OED, Chambers & MW. It is
NOT a collective noun like herd (of animals) or collection
(of any things).
> Consider the following:
>
> The criteria are rigid.
>
> That is awkward and goes to current usage versus what may be rigidly
> considered correct based on the original Latin.
Your example is actually correct. "The criteria is rigid" is well
wrong. "The criterion is rigid" would be the correct form to use
with "is".
I've heard folks use your example. They usually sounded
badly educated in other ways as well.
> I think it's a grammatical point which is arguable as the English
> language has variability here.
Well, yes, English does have some variability, and what is correct
in (say) Scottish English may not be correct in (say) New Zealand
English. Your example may be "correct" in some kind of street patois,
but correct English it ain't.
M
Mark Murray
> By standard usage criteria is considered to be a set of criterion.
> The word "criterion" has fallen out of standard usage.
Rubbish.
> The sentence:
>
> "The criteria are valid."
Is correct.
> Is awkward.
In your dreams.
> Grammarians!!! Please speak up here!!!
>
> I know I have a lot of people in England who follow, opinions please?
You are incorrect.
M
--
Cambridge, England.
Rotwang
> On Jul 5, 2:12 pm, Rotwang <sg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 5 July, 22:09, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > Criteria can be taken as a set, but a set can have more than one
> > > element, so the tweet is still grammatical.
>
> > Then you should have written "the set of crucial criteria [...] is".
> > But you didn't. You wrote "crucial criteria [...] is". So the tweet is
> > still ungrammatical.
>
> By standard usage criteria is considered to be a set of criterion.
Is that another standard usage you've just made up, perchance? Do you
think "the men is large" is acceptable, since men could be considered
to be a set of men?
By the way, ITYM "a set of criteria" in the above (unless you also
think "a set of man" is correct).
> The word "criterion" has fallen out of standard usage.
Nonsense. Searching dictionary.com for the word "criteria" redirects
to the word "criterion", with "criteria" listed below as the plural:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criteria
Note in particular the following quotes:
Although criteria is sometimes used as a singular, most often in
speech and rather infrequently in edited prose, it continues
strongly in use as a plural in standard English, with criterion as
the singular.
[...]
Usage Note: Like the analogous etymological plurals agenda and data,
criteria is widely used as a singular form. Unlike them, however,
it is not yet acceptable in that use.
> The sentence:
>
> "The criteria are valid."
>
> Is awkward.
>
> Grammarians!!! Please speak up here!!!
>
> I know I have a lot of people in England who follow, opinions please?
I am not currently in England, but I am English. You've seen my
opinion.
JSH
> On 5 July, 22:28, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 5, 2:12 pm, Rotwang <sg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On 5 July, 22:09, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > > Criteria can be taken as a set, but a set can have more than one
> > > > element, so the tweet is still grammatical.
>
> > > Then you should have written "the set of crucial criteria [...] is".
> > > But you didn't. You wrote "crucial criteria [...] is". So the tweet is
> > > still ungrammatical.
>
> > By standard usage criteria is considered to be a set of criterion.
>
> Is that another standard usage you've just made up, perchance? Do you
> think "the men is large" is acceptable, since men could be considered
> to be a set of men?
The word "men" is part of standard usage!
The word "criterion" is not. Regardless I've noted your objections
and tweeted a second tweet which handles them.
So I've covered both areas.
More interesting than grammatical arguments are attempts at producing
another perfect tweet which is itself perfect.
> By the way, ITYM "a set of criteria" in the above (unless you also
> think "a set of man" is correct).
It's not by standard usage.
Remember, standard usage is part of grammatical criteria as how people
use words change.
American English is also distinct from British.
> > The word "criterion" has fallen out of standard usage.
>
> Nonsense. Searching dictionary.com for the word "criteria" redirects
> to the word "criterion", with "criteria" listed below as the plural:
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criteria
>
> Note in particular the following quotes:
>
> Although criteria is sometimes used as a singular, most often in
Yup. Makes my point.
> speech and rather infrequently in edited prose, it continues
> strongly in use as a plural in standard English, with criterion as
> the singular.
Possibly in Britain? But NOT in the United States of America.
> [...]
>
> Usage Note: Like the analogous etymological plurals agenda and data,
> criteria is widely used as a singular form. Unlike them, however,
> it is not yet acceptable in that use.
>
> > The sentence:
>
> > "The criteria are valid."
>
> > Is awkward.
>
> > Grammarians!!! Please speak up here!!!
>
> > I know I have a lot of people in England who follow, opinions please?
>
> I am not currently in England, but I am English. You've seen my
> opinion.
And I appreciate it. I've also answered it with a second perfect
tweet for people in the British Empire.
So I have covered the 2 bases: American English and British.
Can we now move on to the issue of whether or not *other* perfect
tweets exist?
Thanks for your input!!! I might not have produced the 2nd perfect
tweet which defines itself as a perfect tweet without them, but can
you now focus on producing additional ones?
My guess is that the odds may be astronomical against.
There may be only 2 perfect tweets in the English language (or 1 if
you're a strict grammarian).
If so, what are the odds of one being found?
James Harris
Rotwang
> On Jul 5, 2:47 pm, Rotwang <sg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:>
>
>
> > Is that another standard usage you've just made up, perchance? Do you
> > think "the men is large" is acceptable, since men could be considered
> > to be a set of men?
>
> The word "men" is part of standard usage!
I know. But the sentence "the men is large" is not.
> The word "criterion" is not.
Jeez Louise. Yes it is. I've cited a standard reference which shows
that it is.
> [...]
> > By the way, ITYM "a set of criteria" in the above (unless you also
> > think "a set of man" is correct).
>
> It's not by standard usage.
I know. That was kind of my point.
> [...]
> > > The word "criterion" has fallen out of standard usage.
>
> > Nonsense. Searching dictionary.com for the word "criteria" redirects
> > to the word "criterion", with "criteria" listed below as the plural:
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criteria
>
> > Note in particular the following quotes:
>
> > Although criteria is sometimes used as a singular, most often in
>
> Yup. Makes my point.
>
> > speech and rather infrequently in edited prose, it continues
> > strongly in use as a plural in standard English, with criterion as
> > the singular.
>
> Possibly in Britain? But NOT in the United States of America.
Did you bother to look at the link? One of the sections I quoted is
based on the Random House Dictionary. The other is taken from The
American Heritage Dictionary of the English language. Those are both
American.
> > [...]
>
> > Usage Note: Like the analogous etymological plurals agenda and data,
> > criteria is widely used as a singular form. Unlike them, however,
> > it is not yet acceptable in that use.
>
> > > The sentence:
>
> > > "The criteria are valid."
>
> > > Is awkward.
>
> > > Grammarians!!! Please speak up here!!!
>
> > > I know I have a lot of people in England who follow, opinions please?
>
> > I am not currently in England, but I am English. You've seen my
> > opinion.
>
> And I appreciate it. I've also answered it with a second perfect
> tweet for people in the British Empire.
>
> So I have covered the 2 bases: American English and British.
>
> Can we now move on to the issue of whether or not *other* perfect
> tweets exist?
>
> Thanks for your input!!! I might not have produced the 2nd perfect
> tweet which defines itself as a perfect tweet without them, but can
> you now focus on producing additional ones?
>
> My guess is that the odds may be astronomical against.
>
> There may be only 2 perfect tweets in the English language (or 1 if
> you're a strict grammarian).
>
> If so, what are the odds of one being found?
A tweet will be called perfect if it is grammatically and
semantically correct, and if it contains exactly one hundred and
forty characters.
Is that good enough? It really wasn't very hard to find.
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In my opinion crucial criteria for a perfect tweet are that it be
>EXACTLY 140 characters, have few if any abbreviations, and is
>grammatical.
While you're at it, you might as well change the "is" to a "be."
--
Tim Chow tchow-at-alum-dot-mit-dot-edu
The range of our projectiles---even ... the artillery---however great, will
never exceed four of those miles of which as many thousand separate us from
the center of the earth. ---Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences
JSH
Nope. Define "semantically correct" in context so that the sentence
is valid. To help you out I have a definition for you.
Semantics definition:
<quote>
1. Of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language.
2. Of, relating to, or according to the science of semantics.
</quote>
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/semantically
Meaning is not in and of itself correct or not correct. It simply,
is.
Note that grammatically correct is proper usage, however.
Try again.
James Harris
mike
@o18g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, jst...@gmail.com says...
> >
> By standard usage criteria is considered to be a set of criterion.
> The word "criterion" has fallen out of standard usage.
>
> The sentence:
>
> "The criteria are valid."
>
> Is awkward.
>
blackboard to me....a bit like "I R baboon!".
In the spirit of your contest I would submit:
"The perfect tweet ends with a q"
...which is self-referentially perfect according to its own definition.
If we consider the following characters (that is, those between the
enclosing pair of {} praces) to be allowable in a tweet : {`'1234567890-
=~!@#$%^&*()_+qwertyuiop[]\QWERTYUIOP{}|asdfghjkl;'ASDFGHJKL:"zxcvbbnm,.
/ZXCVBNM<>?} then I estimate there will be approximately 1.5*10^276
perfect tweets, although only a fraction of them will be self-
referential.
Mike
Rotwang
> On Jul 5, 3:40 pm, Rotwang <sg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > Did you bother to look at the link? One of the sections I quoted is
> > based on the Random House Dictionary. The other is taken from The
> > American Heritage Dictionary of the English language. Those are both
> > American.
I notice you ignored this. Why is that?
> [...]
> > A tweet will be called perfect if it is grammatically and
> > semantically correct, and if it contains exactly one hundred and
> > forty characters.
>
> > Is that good enough? It really wasn't very hard to find.
>
> Nope. Define "semantically correct" in context so that the sentence
> is valid. To help you out I have a definition for you.
>
> Semantics definition:
I already know what "semantically" means, thank you very much. But if
thefreedictionary.com is your preferred online reference for words,
you might like to have a look at what they say about "criteria":
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/criteria
In particular, note
The word criteria is the plural of criterion and it is incorrect
to use it as an alternative singular form; /these criteria are not
valid/ is correct, and so is /this criterion is not valid/, but
not /this criteria is not valid/.
and also
Criteria, the plural of criterion, is not acceptable as a
singular noun: /this criterion is not valid/; /these criteria are
not valid/.
> <quote>
> 1. Of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language.
> 2. Of, relating to, or according to the science of semantics.
> </quote>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/semantically
>
> Meaning is not in and of itself correct or not correct. It simply,
> is.
>
> Note that grammatically correct is proper usage, however.
Utter rubbish. "Semantically correct" is just as meaningful in the
context given as "grammatically correct" is, and your argument to the
contrary is the kind of ridiculous sophistry to which you usually
appeal when the alternative is to admit you were wrong about
something. Still, here's another one anyway:
A tweet which is grammatically correct, and consists of exactly
one hundred and forty characters (including spaces), will be called
perfect.
Jesse F. Hughes
He was wrong in his first post, but correct here. "The criteria
*are*..." is correct, "The criteria *is*..." is incorrect.
(Leaving off the definite article when you wrote "crucial criteria"
may be grammatically acceptable, but it's mighty awkward.)
--
"You are beneath contempt because you betray mathematics itself, and
spit upon the truth, spit upon decency, and spit upon the intelligence
of the world. You betrayed the world, and now it's time for the world
to notice." -- James S. Harris awaits Justice for crimes against Math.
Rotwang
Who, me? How so?
> but correct here. "The criteria
> *are*..." is correct, "The criteria *is*..." is incorrect.
Note that my original objection was not that I thought "criteria"
referred to one thing, but that it was paired with the word "is".
Hence the two possible corrections I offered. I believe that
"criterion [...] is" would also be correct since the "X, Y and Z" part
of the sentence could be considered a single statement built up from
shorter statements by conjunction, though I may be wrong about that.
David Bernier
I would write "criteria [...] are" but not
"criteria [...] is".
I searched for:
"are the Judging Criteria"
vs.
"is the Judging Criteria" on google.co.uk :
UK: 31,200 "are" and 9 "is" .
But on google.com,
658,000 for "are",
1,230,000 for "is" ...
David Bernier
Odysseus
<63385bbc-ec9b-416d...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Rotwang <sg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criteria
>
> Note in particular the following quotes:
>
> Although criteria is sometimes used as a singular, most often in
> speech and rather infrequently in edited prose, it continues
> strongly in use as a plural in standard English, with criterion as
> the singular.
>
> [...]
>
> Usage Note: Like the analogous etymological plurals agenda and data,
> criteria is widely used as a singular form. Unlike them, however,
> it is not yet acceptable in that use.
The same can be said of the substitution of "phenomena" for "phenomenon".
Singular "agenda" seems further along than "data" in terms of
acceptability: AFAICT the latter is still resisted by some writers &
editors, while criticism of the former would be perceived by most
readers as absurd, beyond pedantic.
--
Odysseus
fishfry
<a23519eb-3fad-4ac4...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I posted a perfect tweet today, defined to be 140 characters that is
> grammatical, which defines itself. Can that accomplishment be
> matched?
>
> Here it is, the perfect tweet:
>
> In my opinion, crucial criteria for a perfect tweet is that it be
> EXACTLY 140 characters, have few if any abbreviations, and is
> grammatical.
>
Well if your intention is to be grammatical, you failed.
"Criteria" is plural; so the proper quote would be: crucial criteria ...
ARE ...
not "is."
FAIL.
David C. Ullrich
Giggle.
>The sentence:
>
>"The criteria are valid."
>
>Is awkward.
No, it's correct. "The criteris is..." is simply wrong.
Good to see your ignorance and stubborness isn't restricted
just to math.
>Grammarians!!! Please speak up here!!!
>
>I know I have a lot of people in England who follow, opinions please?
>
>
>James Harris
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)
David C. Ullrich
Regarding "standard usage", goggle gives 6,320,000 hits for
"criteria are" and 1,950,000 for "criteria is".
>The sentence:
>
>"The criteria are valid."
>
>Is awkward.
>
>Grammarians!!! Please speak up here!!!
>
>I know I have a lot of people in England who follow, opinions please?
>
>
>James Harris
David C. Ullrich
David C. Ullrich
>In article <e5e49bf2-cc28-47c7...@p18g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>In my opinion crucial criteria for a perfect tweet are that it be
>>EXACTLY 140 characters, have few if any abbreviations, and is
>>grammatical.
>
>While you're at it, you might as well change the "is" to a "be."
Indeed. The "be" here does seem to me to be falling out of
"standard usage" - people say "is", it makes me crazy but
there's nothing we can do about it (search for
"God Save the Subjunctive" for some amusing comments).
But starting with the correct "be" in one clause and then
_changing_ it to "is" in a parallel clause is really awful.
Jesse F. Hughes
> On 6 July, 00:28, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>>
>> He was wrong in his first post,
>
> Who, me? How so?
On re-reading your first post, I'm not sure what I was thinking of
here.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
Mama: "I had a very good steak when I was in Bonn."
Quincy (Age 4): "A stick? I wish you brought it home. Was it very
big and did it look like a gun?"
Mackly
"Rotwang" <sg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1028db4c-ad05-48dc...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On 6 July, 00:11, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 3:40 pm, Rotwang <sg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
So JSH proclaimed unique victory over the world, before he had the real
thing, before he had any proof.
Sounds like the definition of "JSHism".
Bacle
> > wrote:
> > > On 5 July, 22:09, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jul 5, 1:37 pm, Rotwang
> <sg...@hotmail.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> > >
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > On Jul 5, 1:13 pm, Rotwang
> > <sg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > On 5 July, 21:09, JSH <jst...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > > I posted a perfect tweet today,
> defined
> > to be 140 characters that is
> > > > > > > > grammatical, which defines itself.
> Can
> > that accomplishment be
> > > > > > > > matched?
>
> perfect Twat.
Sorry, James. That should be:
The perfect Twit _by_ the perfect Twat.
>
> > >
> > > > > > > > Here it is, the perfect tweet:
> > >
> > > > > > > > In my opinion, crucial criteria for a
> > perfect tweet is that it be
> > > > > > > > EXACTLY 140 characters, have few if
> any
> > abbreviations, and is
> > > > > > > > grammatical.
> > >
> > > > > > > The word "criteria" is plural. So as
> > written your "perfect tweet" is
> > > > > > > ungrammatical - it should either read
> > "criteria [...] are" or
> > > > > > > "criterion [...] is".
> > >
> > > > > > I give 3 criteria: be exactly 140
> characters,
> > have few if any
> > > > > > abbreviations and is grammatical.
> > >
> > > > > > That is plural so my usage is correct.
> > >
> > > > > But you also use the verb "is", which is
> > singular, although the
> > > > > subject of your clause is plural. So your
> usage
> > is incorrect.
> > >
> > > > Criteria can be taken as a set, but a set can
> > have more than one
> > > > element, so the tweet is still grammatical.
> > >
> > > Then you should have written "the set of crucial
> > criteria [...] is".
> > > But you didn't. You wrote "crucial criteria
> [...]
> > is". So the tweet is
> > > still ungrammatical.
> >
> > By standard usage criteria is considered to be a
> set
> > of criterion.
> > The word "criterion" has fallen out of standard
> > usage.
> >
> > The sentence:
> >
> > "The criteria are valid."
> >
> > Is awkward.
> >
> > Grammarians!!! Please speak up here!!!
> >
> > I know I have a lot of people in England who
> follow,
> > opinions please?
> >
> Interesting how you chided me in another thread
> read for
> "looking for fame and accolades",instead of looking
> g
> for the truth and here you show yourself to be
> be doing the same, tracking down followers.
>
>
>
> What you don't realize is that they are all
> ll laughing
> _at you_.
>
> The perfect Twat, no doubt.
>
> > James Harris
>
> Hypocrit.
Sorry, both posts are for the twat
Bacle
> wrote:
> > On 5 July, 22:09, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 5, 1:37 pm, Rotwang <sg...@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > On 5 July, 21:20, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Jul 5, 1:13 pm, Rotwang
> <sg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On 5 July, 21:09, JSH <jst...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > I posted a perfect tweet today, defined
> to be 140 characters that is
> > > > > > > grammatical, which defines itself. Can
> that accomplishment be
> > > > > > > matched?
Yes, by naming it: the perfect Twit for the
perfect Twat.
> >
Interesting how you chided me in another thread for
"looking for fame and accolades",instead of looking
for the truth and here you show yourself to be doing the same, tracking down followers.
What you don't realize is that they are all laughing
Bacle
with him of just looking for fame. The twat claims
to have no interest in fame, or accolades, only in
the truth.
What is this on your part, Harris-Twat?. Is this
part of your search for truth at any expense, where
fame does not matter?.
Just giving Twit for (the)Twat (i.e., you).
Don't keep that corncob stuck in there for too
long, Twat.
JSH
Sounds like you have no clue what is going on...
Twitter has a rule for a tweet that it be 140 characters or less. A
tweet that is exactly 140 characters can be considered perfect, but
that's kind of boring and too easy as people can use filler
characters, so I added the conditions that it be grammatically
correct, and have few if any abbreviations.
But intriguingly to me, in the process of doing so, I had a tweet that
was itself perfect--or so I thought until called on a grammar issue.
So I corrected it, which locked down that problem:
In my opinion crucial criteria for a perfect tweet are that it be
EXACTLY 140 characters, have few if any abbreviations, and is
grammatical.
Now then, the question is, how many perfect tweets define a perfect
tweet?
I found another:
The perfect tweet must have the following conditions: it must be 140
characters, be grammatically correct and have few if any
abbreviations.
Can anyone find others?
Oh yeah, in this thread one poster found a perfect tweet that dumbed
down the rules a bit by dropping off the part about abbreviations. He
also had a previous one which mis-used the word "semantically", so so
far, no one else has delivered a perfect tweet that defines a perfect
tweet!!!
I'm the only one known to have this achievement so far in the world.
I find it hard to believe though that I've got the only ones when I
did so easily. So it's a challenge!
Oh yeah, what are the odds? Anyone worth anything with combinatorics?
James Harris
Rotwang
I didn't realise that the part about abbreviations was necessary.
Here's one with it included:
A tweet will be called perfect if it is grammatically correct,
uses no abbreviations, and contains exactly one hundred and forty
characters.
These are really very easy to come up with, you know.
> He also had a previous one which mis-used the word "semantically",
No, it didn't, and given that you now apparently realise that you were
wrong about "criteria" (despite your repeated insistence to the
contrary) you should probably acknowledge that you're in a very poor
position to be passing judgement on such things.
JSH
Well, you've probably got a point and it can't make much of a diff.
> Here's one with it included:
>
> A tweet will be called perfect if it is grammatically correct,
> uses no abbreviations, and contains exactly one hundred and forty
> characters.
>
> These are really very easy to come up with, you know.
Then how about few if any abbreviations versus none? Abbreviations in
and of themselves should not I'd think be forbidden.
Regardless, I'd say you succeeded though with the above!
> > He also had a previous one which mis-used the word "semantically",
>
> No, it didn't, and given that you now apparently realise that you were
Yes you did.
> wrong about "criteria" (despite your repeated insistence to the
> contrary) you should probably acknowledge that you're in a very poor
I simply covered both bases.
> position to be passing judgement on such things.
Wrong is wrong. So you used "semantically" incorrectly, what's the
big deal?
I admit that "criteria" is plural so my usage with "is" was
problematic i.e. technically wrong, though American English is at
times so fluid that is a point that could be argued.
You on the other hand have problems admitting when you're wrong.
But hey! You did in my opinion match the challenge giving a perfect
tweet that defines itself as perfect though it is more restrictive in
not allowing ANY abbreviations which I think is going too far, but
that is just my opinion.
James Harris
mike
0c328d...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, jst...@gmail.com says...
>
> But hey! You did in my opinion match the challenge giving a perfect
> tweet that defines itself as perfect though it is more restrictive in
> not allowing ANY abbreviations which I think is going too far, but
> that is just my opinion.
>
How about this one in Swedish*:
En KVITTER kommer att kallas perfekt om det är grammatiskt korrekt,
använder inga förkortningar och innehåller exakt enhundrafyrtioo tecken.
or this one in Galician*...(including the quote marks):
"Un pipiar serán chamados perfecto se é gramaticalmente correcta, Non
utilice abreviatura, e contén exactamente cento e corenta caracteres."
...or this one mostly in Indonesian*:
J menciak akan disebut sempurna jika sudah 'gramatically' benar, tidak
menggunakan singkatan, dan berisi tepat seratus empat puluh karakter.
Cheers
Mike
*According to Google Translate
David Bernier
I counted 45 vowels in your perfect tweet:
"aeeieaeeeiiiaaiayoeueoaeiaioaoaieayoeueaoyaae"
and 43 in James's second perfect tweet.
Can an English perfect tweet without any abbreviations have
42 or fewer vowels?
David
mike
says...
The following English perfect tweet:
If the words chosen for the tweet have less than the average number of
vowels, I think it will not be difficult to have as few as 40 vowels.
..contains only 40 vowels - "IeooeoeeeaeeaeaeaeueooeIiiioeiiuoaeaeaoe".
--Mike
mike
m....@irl.cri.replacethiswithnz says...
A tweet claiming 111111111111111111111111111111111 +
2222222222222222222222222222222 = 333333333333333333333333333333333 has
only 10 vowels.
... has only 10.
-- Mike
JSH
Thinking more on the subject I found a problem with it, as that
definition will call a tweet perfect even if it fails by other rules
not stated, like, spelling.
In contrast my perfect tweet defining a perfect tweet does not have
the same problem as it gives conditions necessary but not necessarily
sufficient.
One option might be to include all possible rules for a perfect tweet,
like spelling and punctuation along with grammar, but that may be
impossible, especially if you include the word "abbreviation".
But have I given a criticism which brings into question my own perfect
tweet which is self-defining? It gives criteria but does not indicate
those are ALL criteria needed, so I think not.
James Harris
David Bernier
Yes. A ee aii a oy oe. That would be 11 I think, but the 'y'
in "rhythm" is considered a non-vowel by some.
What about the 'y' in "only"?
Still, I prefer the first perfect tweet you gave:
>If the words chosen for the tweet have less than the average number of
>vowels, I think it will not be difficult to have as few as 40 vowels.
David
Frederick Williams
>
> The following English perfect tweet:
>
> If the words chosen for the tweet have less than the average number of
Should be 'fewer than'.
> vowels, I think it will not be difficult to have as few as 40 vowels.
>
> ..contains only 40 vowels - "IeooeoeeeaeeaeaeaeueooeIiiioeiiuoaeaeaoe".
>
> --Mike
--
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
Jesse F. Hughes
> In contrast my perfect tweet defining a perfect tweet does not have
> the same problem as it gives conditions necessary but not necessarily
> sufficient.
>
> One option might be to include all possible rules for a perfect tweet,
> like spelling and punctuation along with grammar, but that may be
> impossible, especially if you include the word "abbreviation".
>
> But have I given a criticism which brings into question my own perfect
> tweet which is self-defining? It gives criteria but does not indicate
> those are ALL criteria needed, so I think not.
If it lists some necessary conditions, but these conditions are not
jointly sufficient, then it is not self-defining. It instead
partially describes itself.
By the way, it really is hard to figure out why you think that your
original (amended) tweet is such an accomplishment. I came up with
this in about five minutes.
The perfect tweet consists of exactly a hundred forty characters,
with few or no abbreviations and explicitly lists these three
conditions.
If you want to include spelling, etc. (implicitly), then this tweet
does it:
The perfect tweet consists of 140 characters of well written
English, has few or no abbreviations and explicitly lists these 3
conditions.
(The numeral 3 might not be consistent with the Chicago Manual, but I
don't think it violates a rule of English per se.)
This little puzzle of yours is not so difficult.
--
"Clouds are always white and the sky is always blue,
And houses it doesn't matter what color they are,
And ours is made of brick."
-- A new song by Quincy P. Hughes (age 4)
Jesse F. Hughes
> mike wrote:
>
>>
>> The following English perfect tweet:
>>
>> If the words chosen for the tweet have less than the average number of
>
> Should be 'fewer than'.
That's merely a rule for pedants (including me). The use of "less
than" as in the sentence above has been acceptable for literally
centuries.
--
"I deal with reality. It's a brutal reality. But it's the only one
we've got. And people like me, do what it takes. I'm part of a long
line of discoverers. So I do what it takes."
-- James S. Harris channels George W. Bush
James Burns
> On Jul 6, 5:28 pm, Rotwang <sg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 7 July, 01:15, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> He also had a previous one which mis-used the word
>>> "semantically",
>>
>>No, it didn't, and given that you now apparently realise
>>that you were
>
> Yes you did.
>
>>wrong about "criteria" (despite your repeated insistence
>>to the contrary) you should probably acknowledge that
>>you're in a very poor
>
> I simply covered both bases.
>
>>position to be passing judgement on such things.
>
> Wrong is wrong. So you used "semantically" incorrectly,
> what's the big deal?
JSH -- At first, I thought your argument was that
Rotwang should admit he used "semantically correct"
incorrectly because there is no such thing as
correctness or incorrectness. See upthread, where you --
JSH -- assert:
< Meaning is not in and of itself correct or not correct.
< It simply, is.
Message ID:
<a8751ebe-934c-4878...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
It seems like you are simply contradicting yourself,
but a more charitable interpretation is that you
were thinking of definitions rather than meanings.
"A definition is not in and of itself correct or
not correct", okay. "Meaning ...", not so much.
"Semantically correct" is just another way to say
"true". And I know you recognize some things as being
true or false -- given that you want to tell others
that what they're writing is false or wrong.
By the way, bad comma. It should read: "It simply is."
Jim Burns
Rotwang
> On Jul 6, 5:28 pm, Rotwang <sg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Wrong is wrong. So you used "semantically" incorrectly,
Do you think that if you say this enough times without offering a
shred of evidence you might convince even one person that it's true?
You might, but as always that one person is you.
> what's the big deal?
The big deal is that you're still an idiot. But do you know what's
funny about this line of argument? Of course you don't, so here it is:
if I /had/ used "semantically" incorrectly, then the error I would
have made would have been a /semantic error/. If you were right, then
since you argue that the definition of "perfect tweet" should contain
no references to semantic correctness, my original offering would have
been "perfect" anyway.
Mumra
"Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote in message
news:87eisse...@phiwumbda.org...
> JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> The perfect tweet consists of 140 characters of well written
> English, has few or no abbreviations and explicitly lists these 3
> conditions.
>
"well written" does not include the numeric "3" as used , should be "three"
Try again
Jesse F. Hughes
> "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote in message
> news:87eisse...@phiwumbda.org...
>> JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> The perfect tweet consists of 140 characters of well written
>> English, has few or no abbreviations and explicitly lists these 3
>> conditions.
>>
>
> "well written" does not include the numeric "3" as used , should be "three"
>
> Try again
>
>> (The numeral 3 might not be consistent with the Chicago Manual, but I
>> don't think it violates a rule of English per se.)
I admitted that it might be dubious, but not so very bad. More a
stylistic issue than a rule of English, I'd say.
--
"Humanity is still a primitive species. I seem to have been born out
of my time, maybe centuries ahead, and I guess I'll just have to get
used to it. In ways, it's not so bad. Mostly it's boring though."
-- James S. Harris has problems beyond you and me.
JSH
> JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
> > In contrast my perfect tweet defining a perfect tweet does not have
> > the same problem as it gives conditions necessary but not necessarily
> > sufficient.
>
> > One option might be to include all possible rules for a perfect tweet,
> > like spelling and punctuation along with grammar, but that may be
> > impossible, especially if you include the word "abbreviation".
>
> > But have I given a criticism which brings into question my own perfect
> > tweet which is self-defining? It gives criteria but does not indicate
> > those are ALL criteria needed, so I think not.
>
> If it lists some necessary conditions, but these conditions are not
> jointly sufficient, then it is not self-defining. It instead
> partially describes itself.
>
> By the way, it really is hard to figure out why you think that your
> original (amended) tweet is such an accomplishment. I came up with
> this in about five minutes.
Wow, only five minutes to make a 139 character tweet? You failed to
reach perfection.
> The perfect tweet consists of exactly a hundred forty characters,
> with few or no abbreviations and explicitly lists these three
> conditions.
The tweet is 139 character, not 140.
> If you want to include spelling, etc. (implicitly), then this tweet
> does it:
>
> The perfect tweet consists of 140 characters of well written
> English, has few or no abbreviations and explicitly lists these 3
> conditions.
That tweet has 138 characters. You were off from perfection by 2
characters.
Harder than you thought, eh?
Oh yeah, for those of you NOT on Twitter, you might want to use it
before you attempt this challenge.
And for readers, yeah, people tell falsehoods on Usenet so don't just
suppose that someone has met this challenge because they post
something as you can see with the guy above.
___JSH
Mumra
"JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e43e49a2-dc92-433c...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
>And for readers, yeah, people tell falsehoods on Usenet so don't just
>suppose that someone has met this challenge because they post
>something as you can see with the guy above.
>
>___JSH
JSH admitting to lying about perfect tweeting.
JSH
My tweets can be checked as all are on Twitter. A website that makes
checking convenient is:
My username is: jstevh
If someone thinks I'm wrong about whether or not a tweet is 140
characters or not, just make sure it's on Twitter and give a username,
then it can easily be checked from an objective source.
Arguing is such a WASTE of time, when there is an objective test
available.
So notice, lying here is actually REALLY HARD which I emphasize to try
and stop the Usenet falsehood flow.
Some people here may have a habit of lying without worrying about
being checked, but on Twitter, you don't have that luxury.
James Harris
Jesse F. Hughes
>> The perfect tweet consists of exactly a hundred forty characters,
>> with few or no abbreviations and explicitly lists these three
>> conditions.
>
> The tweet is 139 character, not 140.
Not by my count, but evidently I counted the end-of-line character at
the end of the tweet.
Big deal. Easily fixed.
The perfect tweet consists of exactly a hundred and forty characters,
with few/no abbreviations and explicitly lists these three
conditions.
>
>> If you want to include spelling, etc. (implicitly), then this tweet
>> does it:
>>
>> The perfect tweet consists of 140 characters of well written
>> English, has few or no abbreviations and explicitly lists these 3
>> conditions.
>
> That tweet has 138 characters. You were off from perfection by 2
> characters.
The perfect tweet consists of 140 characters of well written
English, has few/no abbreviations and explicitly lists these three
conditions.
> Harder than you thought, eh?
Minor errors in counting. Big whup.
I'm sure you'll let me know if I have another counting error.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Anything was possible last night. That was the trouble with last
nights. They were always followed by this mornings."
-- Terry Pratchett, /Small Gods/
JSH
> JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> The perfect tweet consists of exactly a hundred forty characters,
> >> with few or no abbreviations and explicitly lists these three
> >> conditions.
>
> > The tweet is 139 character, not 140.
>
> Not by my count, but evidently I counted the end-of-line character at
> the end of the tweet.
>
> Big deal. Easily fixed.
And you think you're a mathematician and say failing is not a big
deal?
That's like saying that previously claiming 2+2=5 is not a big deal!
What kind of a "mathematician" are you?
> The perfect tweet consists of exactly a hundred and forty characters,
> with few/no abbreviations and explicitly lists these three
> conditions.
You gave 2 conditions, not three. Oh, not a big deal again?
And do you think 2+2 = 3?
Do you teach your students that error is not a big deal?
Must be easy passing your tests!!!
No big deal. Mistake. No big deal. 100. Everybody wins!!!
> >> If you want to include spelling, etc. (implicitly), then this tweet
> >> does it:
>
> >> The perfect tweet consists of 140 characters of well written
> >> English, has few or no abbreviations and explicitly lists these 3
> >> conditions.
>
> > That tweet has 138 characters. You were off from perfection by 2
> > characters.
>
> The perfect tweet consists of 140 characters of well written
> English, has few/no abbreviations and explicitly lists these three
> conditions.
Give a grammatical reference for "few/no" as to whether or not it is
"well written English".
And I didn't check the count on this one as I don't have the time.
Tweet it, and give your username if you wish to push it as an entry so
that an objective test can be managed with another source.
> > Harder than you thought, eh?
>
> Minor errors in counting. Big whup.
You must be an easy grader for your students.
If you have students on these forums they can make endless fun of you.
In real life, error is error and being wrong is being wrong.
If you didn't accomplish the task you can't just play it off as if
failure IS part of the task.
It's not.
> I'm sure you'll let me know if I have another counting error.
Nope.
Your attitude and behavior make it clear that the honor system won't
work.
People wishing to claim a perfect tweet need to tweet it on Twitter,
and give their username.
Then the tweet can be checked for characters at:
Those wanting to check my perfect tweets defining perfect tweets need
only use the username: jstevh
I AM honest and objective.
Unfortunately on these forums I've often seen people who are not who
have the attitudes that the truth does not matter.
James Harris
Bacle
You are as dishonest and self-deluded as it gets.
You are too cowardly to take a square look at yourself,
and prefer to cry and blame everyone else for _your_
failings.
>
> Unfortunately on these forums I've often seen people
> who are not who have the attitudes that the truth does not matter.
>
Only self-adulation and fame matter to you. That
is too bad, considering you have no real talent.
>
> James Harris
Rotwang
>
> [...]
>
> And you think you're a mathematician and say failing is not a big
> deal?
>
> That's like saying that previously claiming 2+2=5 is not a big deal!
>
> What kind of a "mathematician" are you?
Er, James? You might want to think a bit harder about what you're
saying here. These words might just come back to haunt you at some
point.
> [...]
>
> You gave 2 conditions, not three. Oh, not a big deal again?
>
> And do you think 2+2 = 3?
>
> Do you teach your students that error is not a big deal?
>
> Must be easy passing your tests!!!
>
> No big deal. Mistake. No big deal. 100. Everybody wins!!!
And these.
> [...]
>
> In real life, error is error and being wrong is being wrong.
>
> If you didn't accomplish the task you can't just play it off as if
> failure IS part of the task.
>
> It's not.
And these.
----
"...and as for my many mistakes while figuring things out, well,
that's part of extreme mathematics!!!" - James Harris
Bacle
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > And you think you're a mathematician and say
> failing is not a big
> > deal?
> >
> > That's like saying that previously claiming 2+2=5
> is not a big deal!
> >
> > What kind of a "mathematician" are you?
>
> Er, James? You might want to think a bit harder about
> what you're
> saying here. These words might just come back to
> haunt you at some
> point.
>
shield of circular logic and of ignoring everything
he does not like. Nothing that ever challenges JSH
in the least way can pass through.
Still,I have been dumb-enough to lock heads against this, even after realizing this.
Jesse F. Hughes
> On Jul 7, 8:14 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>> JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> The perfect tweet consists of exactly a hundred forty characters,
>> >> with few or no abbreviations and explicitly lists these three
>> >> conditions.
>>
>> > The tweet is 139 character, not 140.
>>
>> Not by my count, but evidently I counted the end-of-line character at
>> the end of the tweet.
>>
>> Big deal. Easily fixed.
>
> And you think you're a mathematician and say failing is not a big
> deal?
I'm not a mathematician and I think miscounting is not a big deal.
> That's like saying that previously claiming 2+2=5 is not a big deal!
>
> What kind of a "mathematician" are you?
>
>> The perfect tweet consists of exactly a hundred and forty characters,
>> with few/no abbreviations and explicitly lists these three
>> conditions.
>
> You gave 2 conditions, not three. Oh, not a big deal again?
"Explicitly lists these three conditions" is the third condition.
> And do you think 2+2 = 3?
>
> Do you teach your students that error is not a big deal?
I don't teach mathematics.
> Must be easy passing your tests!!!
>
> No big deal. Mistake. No big deal. 100. Everybody wins!!!
>
>> >> If you want to include spelling, etc. (implicitly), then this tweet
>> >> does it:
>>
>> >> The perfect tweet consists of 140 characters of well written
>> >> English, has few or no abbreviations and explicitly lists these 3
>> >> conditions.
>>
>> > That tweet has 138 characters. You were off from perfection by 2
>> > characters.
>>
>> The perfect tweet consists of 140 characters of well written
>> English, has few/no abbreviations and explicitly lists these three
>> conditions.
>
> Give a grammatical reference for "few/no" as to whether or not it is
> "well written English".
Er, using the slash to mean "or" is common enough.
> And I didn't check the count on this one as I don't have the time.
>
> Tweet it, and give your username if you wish to push it as an entry so
> that an objective test can be managed with another source.
Thanks, but I'd rather chew my own foot off than participate in
Twitter.
>> > Harder than you thought, eh?
>>
>> Minor errors in counting. Big whup.
>
> You must be an easy grader for your students.
>
> If you have students on these forums they can make endless fun of
> you.
>
> In real life, error is error and being wrong is being wrong.
>
> If you didn't accomplish the task you can't just play it off as if
> failure IS part of the task.
>
> It's not.
>
>> I'm sure you'll let me know if I have another counting error.
>
> Nope.
>
> Your attitude and behavior make it clear that the honor system won't
> work.
You're so cute.
> People wishing to claim a perfect tweet need to tweet it on Twitter,
> and give their username.
I don't use Twitter and I don't want to.
> Then the tweet can be checked for characters at:
>
> http://www.perfecttweet.info/
>
> Those wanting to check my perfect tweets defining perfect tweets need
> only use the username: jstevh
>
> I AM honest and objective.
>
> Unfortunately on these forums I've often seen people who are not who
> have the attitudes that the truth does not matter.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
Mama: "I had a very good steak when I was in Bonn."
Quincy (Age 4): "A stick? I wish you brought it home. Was it very
big and did it look like a gun?"
JSH
> JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Jul 7, 8:14 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> >> JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >> The perfect tweet consists of exactly a hundred forty characters,
> >> >> with few or no abbreviations and explicitly lists these three
> >> >> conditions.
>
> >> > The tweet is 139 character, not 140.
>
> >> Not by my count, but evidently I counted the end-of-line character at
> >> the end of the tweet.
>
> >> Big deal. Easily fixed.
>
> > And you think you're a mathematician and say failing is not a big
> > deal?
>
> I'm not a mathematician and I think miscounting is not a big deal.
For a task where the major requirement is the count?
You make my point that people on these newsgroups can simply lie and
do so even with the most obvious things.
> > That's like saying that previously claiming 2+2=5 is not a big deal!
>
> > What kind of a "mathematician" are you?
>
> >> The perfect tweet consists of exactly a hundred and forty characters,
> >> with few/no abbreviations and explicitly lists these three
> >> conditions.
>
> > You gave 2 conditions, not three. Oh, not a big deal again?
>
> "Explicitly lists these three conditions" is the third condition.
You're nuts.
> > And do you think 2+2 = 3?
>
> > Do you teach your students that error is not a big deal?
>
> I don't teach mathematics.
But you do teach, right?
ANY subject your students can rip on you.
If you teach English they can rip on you, or history. Maybe if you
teach pottery?
Ok, if you teach pottery you might be safe.
And given the attention Twitter garners you should not be surprised if
you face students who will know of your discussions here. It is a
public forum and this thread now is in the top 10 on Google and
Yahoo!--which kind of surprised me--for searches on: perfect tweet
You may be famous!
James Harris
Mumra
On Jul 8, 12:38 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
<snip>
James Harris - The prefect twit
(James, you are such a narcissist! that is why you are reading this)
Mumra
My username is: jstevh
James Harris
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Old Stuff JSH;
Searching for The Perfect Tweet
September 9th, 2008
So here's my dilemma, if I treat Twitter like a blog/microblog, then I only
follow people whose tweets I enjoy and learn from.
If I treat Twitter like a social networking site, e.g. Facebook, then I
mutually friend everyone regardless of whether or not I keep up with their
updates.
Why Does It Matter?
At first it didn't matter since there were only a handful of people I was
following, and I could easily scroll through the updates to see what was
going on. Actually, I could scroll through two pages of updates and get a
summary of that entire day.
Now I'm following enough people that I can't keep up, so I just log on and
see what's going on in real time. Unfortunately, that only results in
catching 20 to 40 updates and the rest slip through my fingers.
So What's a Tweep to Do?
Some people say that it's proper etiquette to mutually follow everyone sans
spam and broadcasting Tweeps. The drawback is that you're inundated with
updates if you follow enough people.
Other people say that you should only follow those individuals who you find
interesting. The drawback here is that you can come across as a snob by
being picky about who you follow.
Yet another group of people say that you should use tools like TweetDeck to
help manage your account; yet it would be unfair of me to follow someone and
then filter them out.
So Twitterverse, what's a Tweep to do? I would greatly appreciate your
comments, and I've also included a poll below that you can use to voice your
opinion.
How should I handle my Twitter followers?
Only follow Tweeps who I value & enjoy?
Mutually follow everyone! (sans spammy Tweeps)
Manage your Tweeps w/ TweetDeck or another tool.
Manage your Tweeps w/ multiple Twitter accounts.
View Results
Polldaddy.com
Sincerely,
Tomas
Filed under Twitter and tagged with: Twitter
20 Responses to "Searching for The Perfect Tweet"
Tyson Crosbie says:
January 5th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Twitter is a tool, unfortunately it is a different tool for everyone.
My current thoughts:
(which have evolved to this point over time)
As a service type business owner I use twitter to do a lot of things but the
most important are business development and customer service. In this way I
feel it is necessary to have a line of communication (dm) open to nearly
everyone that requests one.
However contradicting that I also feel like the biggest benefit to twitter
is the people I choose to follow. It is their stories and interaction that I
want to be the center of my experience while on twitter.
This is why I use tweetdeck to manage it. I don't feel like it is a slight
to those that I don't read every tweet because if they need to contact me I've
given them the ability to dm me. And I could always add them to my follow
list if their experience began to influence me enough.
Chris Lee says:
January 5th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
I prefer following most folks sans spam & broadcasters in concert with
TweetDeck. You never know who you are going to connect with.
I don't think of using TweetDeck groups as actively filtering people out. I
still have the All group available and I check it when I have time. If you
follow people outside of TweetDeck, you have to pay attention to it if you
ever want to add newcomers to a group anyway.
With many people following & following them back, not everybody is actively
engaged with everybody so I don't think the use of groups is a bad thing.
md says:
January 5th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
I have a fifth option. Mutually follow everyone, for at least a week or two,
it gives you more time to find out if a person is worth the long-term
follow. If they aren't they probably wont notice, so you can either filter
or unfollow (filtering might be better, because it allows you to still have
DM contact w/ someone if you/they need it)
Tomas says:
January 5th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
@Tyson Crosbie, @Chris Lee, @md - Thank you for the feedback! I understand
what you're saying about filtering being an effective tool for managing your
followers, and I guess it's not as unfair as I made it out to be in the
post. Actually when I think of it, filtering is something we do in everyday
situations as it's a part of us (e.g. selective hearing,
concentrating/focusing).
I may have to give TweetDeck another shot; I wasn't very happy with the
amount of resources it consumes on my MacBook as it sometimes tops Firefox
when it comes to CPU usage.
Also, another idea I'm tinkering with is having a personal and 'business'
Twitter account. That way, I can keep the personal account nimble while I go
hog wild with the business account.
Brandon Franklin says:
January 5th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Well, I've tried it both ways and here's what I think.
Initially, I started following people who I "wanted to be connected with" in
any way . so basically any PHX local, regardless of whether I was interested
in what they had to say.
I quickly found that my Twitter feed became absolutely useless and
uninteresting to me. So I installed Tweetdeck to manage it. Then I had a
very unpleasant "Twitter As Chatroom" experience.
Soon I realized I wasn't using Twitter; it was using me. I promptly
uninstalled Tweetdeck and unfollowed people that I didn't care to read
regularly. My my, suddenly I REALLY LIKED reading Twitter again!
Then I enhanced the experience further by adding some pre-constructed
Twitter Searches to my RSS reader. Wow. So much better.
So in summary, I don't give a crap what somebody else just "decides" is
"proper etiquette". If they don't like it, they don't have to follow me.
That set of etiquette rules is arbitrary and pointless and doesn't serve any
actual goal. It's pretend universe BS. If somebody wants to see what I say,
they can follow me. If I want to see what they have to say, I'll follow
them. If we want to communicate, there are a VARIETY of approaches for that:
Jabber, email, Facebook, whatever.
Okay so I have strong feelings on this.
Brian says:
January 5th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
All of the options "work". It really depends on you and which method results
in a better experience. Since you're a savvy guy, it seems like the
TweetDeck approach would fit you well. Get more data so you have better
range, and for the people you value more than others, put them on a
pedestal.
The option I would recommend least to you is to follow
*everyone*(-but-spammers). Don't follow anyone unless you would at least
rate their tweets 1 out of 10. I don't recommend TweetDeck to "filter out"
people you don't want to see. It should really be used to "filter up" the
people you really don't want to miss.
Tune into the rest like you would a (DV-R-less) TV. If you're there when it
happens, good. If you're not, oh well.
Ms. Herr says:
January 6th, 2009 at 12:28 am
@Tyson, @Chris, and @md all bring up very valid points, and I agree with
them all conditionally. When you are using Twitter as a business development
and customer service channel, it is important to be as open as feasible to
anyone who wants direct communication with you. And @md's suggestion to
follow people for a week ties in well with my own thoughts about using
notifications to get a real sense of who they are.
As the owner of multiple Twitter accounts, I can tell you that I subscribe
to the "follow everyone sans spam & broadcasters," but ONLY on business or
project related accounts. I'm much more selective with follows on @MsHerr,
my primary and personal account. My reasons vary from being genuinely
interested in [almost] everything someone has to say to wanting to have DM
capability.
Twitter follow reciprocity may have been good etiquette when Twitter was
young, but as the user base swells, so does the presence of those trying to
game the system.
Consider those who might follow you simply with the hope, or expectation,
that you will follow back. These people then unfollow if you choose not to
reciprocate. In a brief five week experiment, I used Qwitter to track my
unfollows. Nearly two-thirds of new followers unfollowed me within five days
if I did not reciprocate; half of those people only gave me two days to
reciprocate. These numbers are disappointingly high.
@twetiquette says "unfollowing someone is not impolite." I'd like to extend
this statement and say that not following someone is not impolite. The same
logic also applies to filtration.
Whether you subscribe to follow-all-who-follow-you or more selective follow
and filtration practices, it is vital to acknowledge and respond to those
who @ you. In a public setting, it's bad policy to completely disregard
someone who calls you by name. You wouldn't do it offline, so don't do it
online.
Remember, this is YOUR Twitter account. It is up to you to choose who to
include in your feed. Do not let anyone, yourself or another user, guilt you
for your choices.
Tomas says:
January 6th, 2009 at 2:05 am
@Brandon Franklin - Nice comment, looks like you're keeping it real!
Actually, the philosophy I would like to follow falls very much in line with
what you said.
@Brian - It's funny because that's exactly what I do with Google Reader; I
"filter up" blogs that I enjoy but still have a whole slew of great blogs
that I rank accordingly.
@Ms. Herr - A light went off in my head after reading your comment and now I
realize that I failed to mention that my Twitter account is as much a
socializing tool as it is a business tool since it's a representation of my
'brand' as a freelancer too. That's where it gets difficult because as much
as I would like a more personal Twitter, part of me also knows that I need
to be out there meeting new peeps and networking. Which again brings me to
the idea of having separate accounts for personal and business which I know
several people on Twitter do (including yourself).
Which brings me to another thought and maybe this is an idea for someone
else to blog about, but it would be interesting to know how to best
transition in your Twitter business account when all your followers are on
your personal account (and know you by your personal account)? If anyone has
any good resources for this, feel free to send them my way.
Derek Neighbors says:
January 6th, 2009 at 8:08 am
I think I agree most with Brian here. Different strokes for different folks
but here is my current strategy.
Follow anyone except flat out spammers. I do this simply to increase the
chance for serendipitous moments to occur as well as ensure that I can dm
anyone in network without hassle. This has paid off more times than I can
count. It has nothing to do with etiquette and everything to do with being
open minded. I don't see networking as a "what can i get out of you"
proposition. I think of it as a "what can i do for you".
This of course produces a large amount of noise that needs some kind of
processing. I think Brian's analog is quite good. I use tweetdeck to DVR
everyone in the network. Then I create a couple of groups that include
people that I want to see in "real time". This is small feed that I check
regularly. Then when I have time I browse what was DVR'ed.
Additionally, tweetdeck allows me to follow things relative to what is
important and the time via saved search phrases, like integrum, gangplank,
authoritylabs, datedesigner, merb, etc..
The only real drawback is tweetdeck is not mobile. To solve this I have a
select few that I want to be ULTRA real time. I subscribe to those people
via SMS. This way when I am out and about I get their tweets w/o needing to
use a shitty iPhone twitter client. If they are in a conversation with
someone that is outside my condensed list, I can always open a twitter
client to view my full stream and follow the conversation.
This seems to be working okay for me currently, but admittedly I am well
under 1,000 followers so it might not scale well beyond several hundred.
Jeff Moriarty says:
January 6th, 2009 at 8:14 am
I struggle with this, too, and my approach is also evolving.
I started using Tweetdeck and then started following more people back. I use
a special Group to track the people who I just do not want to miss what they're
saying. The Everyone column now becomes a stream that I eyeball when I can,
but if I miss things I don't sweat it. I often find new people this way to
follow more closely, or get in touch with real-time discussions.
So Tweetdeck lets me have both of the situations you're referring to. I just
wish you could Export/Import group lists between machines/installations.
Konstanze says:
January 6th, 2009 at 10:20 am
@Thomas @Brandon Franklin
I have been pondering this issue and concur with other commentors here that
tweet streams cannot fulfill all communicative needs or rhetorical
situations. However, as my tweet stream grew, I lost sight of it. Actually,
never had that sight until it became hindsight. So, I got disillusioned
because I didn't really see a value in spending all this time and not really
getting anything out of it anymore. In now more lucid hindsight, I see four
main uses: (still have to decide what I want, really)
- private/personal
- Community of Practice-like
- business/marketing
- exhibitionistic/voyeuristic (not quite parallel)
Private/personal: Probably a smaller stream if you are looking for ambience
awareness of ppl you personally know and care for. Relatively little time
spent yields the tremendous satisfaction of keeping up with friends and
combating any feeling of lonliness.
Community of Practice-like: Probably a larger, select stream of individuals
who hold knowledge you want that allows you to tap their explicit and tacit
knowledge about topics of personal/research interest. The time spent
browsing around/Twitter searching keywords seems useful enough and is
satisfactory when you discover knew knowledge or are able to share your
knowledge which in turn enhances your standing among the tweeps.
business/marketing: Huge stream of followers for most ubiquitous coverage of
your message. No need to follow others, except to not appear rude or
snobbish. Satisfaction is measured in monetary units as afforded by
increased respect for the product/company and the enhanced status as
'trusted advisor'.
exhibitionistic/voyeuristic: Let's be honest, both these are valid
sentiments and Twitter is the fitting response to these communicative needs,
or should I say exigencies. There's an element of both in all aforementioned
uses and, for that matter, in all blogging/micro-blogging activity.
Satisfaction clearly comes from a sense of accomplished self-importance (no
matter how many ppl actually read your tweets) and from a less glorified
need to 'snoop' in others' lives (satisfying nontheless!)
As for the etiquette, I believe that we are in the midst of forming one.
However, I also believe that it will, for the most part and rightfully so,
be kept an individual matter simply because the technology affords us to
tune in and out as we please. No need to put up with anyone/anything. This
also is one of the major difference between f2f and online communication -
the power to turn it off (one can always fall back on the old 'my browser
crashed' excuse if s.o. complains.) So, translating rules of f2f etiquette
to the tweetverse might not be necessary at all depending on your personal
communicative need. Obviously pissing off potential customers is not
desirable.
Twitter is all about YOU, YOU, and YOU.
Tomas says:
January 6th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
@Derek Neighbors @Jeff Moriarty - More and more I get the feeling that
TweetDeck is the superior tool when it comes to managing a large Twitter
following. Maybe I'm just being overly critical of how much resources
TweetDeck takes up on my laptop, and I'm probably in the minority of
individuals who sees a CPU usage of 7%-12% as a bad thing.
@Konstanze - I really like how you broke out each use for Twitter, and I
think that ultimately I have to do some soul searching and decide what
category I'm ultimately aiming for.
Steve Belt says:
January 6th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I follow 800+ people, so obviously I cannot read every tweet from every
person. Given that my name is my brand, it doesn't make much sense (for me)
to have two twitter handles to separate biz from social.
I think I get 5+ new followers every day. Currently, I follow back about
half of them. If someone is an SEO hack or mortgage hack from across the
country, I'm not following them back. If someone is a REALTOR from across
the country, I will probably follow them back. If someone is following 2000
tweeps, with a 3 day old twitter account, I probably won't follow them back.
In fact, if someone varies greatly between followers (high) and following
(low), I'm not likely to follow them.
Local to Phoenix, given my business, I follow darned near anyone that
appears to be minutely interesting. I'll be honest with regard to Phoenix,
it's because it's another chance to get my name in front of them. But, I
really do care about what's going on in and around Phoenix, and I think I
follow every single person that's replied to this post. And you folks, I pay
attention to quite closely (of course, with TweetDeck).
a few considerations before starting that 2nd, or 3rd, Twitter account � Ms.
Herr when online says:
January 6th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
[...] is a worthwhile conversation emerging on this subject on Tomas
Carrillo's blog. I highly encourage you to read both his original post and
the comment [...]
Tomas says:
January 6th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
@Steve Belt - I'm glad to see your comment, especially since you talk about
your criteria when it comes to which Tweeps make the cut and which don't.
Time says:
January 6th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
@konstanze - I must begin by inquiring as to how many of your four uses were
satisfied by your post.
I certainly concur with your breakdown, though. There is a certain
rhetorical situation that twitter fulfills for most people; it largely has
to do with sharing insight, humor, personal events, etc. with other
individuals with whom we feel some connection. There is, of course the
faction of twitter users who chose to use it largely for business purposes
(not SPAM). However, most of what comes through is more social in nature.
All of this is really framed in the exhibitionist/voyeur concept; we clearly
have a desire to make public the tweets that we do and receive some
satisfaction when doing so, regardless of how many people read them (albeit
an increased satisfaction exists when we get feedback proving someone is
aware of our posts). Merely seeing that someone follows us (back) also adds
to this feeling.
I also find an important point in what md points out, if you are following
someone (and they follow back), you have the option of DMing when needed.
This does not mean you need to watch every tweet.
As I am in the 200-250 range of followers/followings (a small fraction of
other tweeps), I have reached the point that it is impossible to follow
everyone actively. So, using a tool like tweetdeck is great, even advisable.
You are going to miss a huge chunk of them anyway, so why not "filter up" as
@brianshaler, et al. suggest.
That said, I do not use tweetdeck, although I think I should. In truth, I
have a handful of people that come directly to my phone (33% of which have
already responded to this post). In this way, I see all their tweets. Then,
since I am at a computer all day and night :-/ , I keep twitter open and pop
over every now and again to check it out in real-time. There are some people
who pop out and I read with more interest than others that I may skim over.
Admittedly, stating I have twitter open always suggests that it is really
more important in my life than it really is, and it CAN be a distracter; but
it is really just a minimized window to check on occasion. I do pretty much
practice the follow "most" followers largely for the point that @dneighbors
brings up: it increases the chances of serendipitous moments. Also, it
increases the chances of forming more solid friendships with like-minded
folks with who you might not otherwise.
Etiquette? Well, I must concur with @msherr and the group; twitter is for
you! unfollowing and not following someone is not impolite (although it
might initiate a minimally awkward conversation if it is with someone you
often see). That said, do not feel guilty about removing your affiliation
w/someone who's just not doin it for ya.
@tomas, your original dilema was how to treat/use twitter. Clearly, you
understand the difference in the option. The question is how do you want to
use it and then apply the method that is going to make it work best for you.
alandd says:
January 6th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
I am in what appears to be a unique position in the Twitter crowd. I cannot
use Twitter during the work day unless I leave the office for a wifi
hotspot. Employer blocks Twitter and I don't have a smart phone.
The effect of this is to limit my tweeting time to before work and after
evening activities. I go as long as 14 hours before checking in. I handle
the backlog by keeping the number of people I follow low. I also check
http://followcost.com to see if someone is very active. It's not an
automatic veto but weighs heavily in the decision.
I am also preparing to migrate some of my online identity to something new.
This discussion helps me think about larger online communication issues,
especially as it applies to multiple identities. Ms. Herr's insights on that
issue were great.
I like the filtering ideas and features described for Tweetdeck. I'll have
to start using it to conquer the tweet flood at the end of the evening!
Konstanze says:
January 7th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
You all might have already seen this, but just in case I'm adding it to this
discussion: Twitdom's most popular apps http://twitdom.com/popular/
Steven Shaffer says:
January 9th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Basically, I use a strict formula: "Whatever feels right for as long as it
feels right." I don't mean this in a conceited way. As I gain new followers,
I check them out. I'm curious about who cares what I have to say. If they
are interesting I'll follow back. But only for so long as they are
interesting. (By interesting, I mean do they fit my interests at the time;
all people are interesting in and of themselves).
I don't feel any guilt when I unfollow people, nor to I feel slighted when
they unfollow me. We are the first generation facing the challenge of
parsing so much information so quickly. Our attention spans haven't been
primed since childhood to accept such a data stream, we're just learning.
The only right answer, is the one that's right for me.
Brandon Franklin says:
January 9th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Hear, hear! to what Steven Shaffer said
Leave a Reply
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
Anti-spam math answer: (Required)*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the answer to the math
equation shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of
the equation.
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail
Jesse F. Hughes
> On Jul 8, 12:38 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not a mathematician and I think miscounting is not a big deal.
>
> For a task where the major requirement is the count?
>
> You make my point that people on these newsgroups can simply lie and
> do so even with the most obvious things.
Yes, yes, I failed to notice that there were some end-of-line
characters in my files. Obviously, I am both a loser and a liar and I
made your point.
Geez, that's quite a victory. On the other hand, I fixed the errors
and gave two more so-called perfect tweets. This shows that even a
person too stupid to count can solve your puzzle, though it might take
him two tries.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Well, I guess that's what a teacher from Oklahoma State University
considers proper as Ullrich has said it, and he is, in fact, a teacher
at Oklahoma State University." -- James S. Harris presents a syllogism
JSH
> JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Jul 8, 12:38 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>
> >> I'm not a mathematician and I think miscounting is not a big deal.
>
> > For a task where the major requirement is the count?
>
> > You make my point that people on these newsgroups can simply lie and
> > do so even with the most obvious things.
>
> Yes, yes, I failed to notice that there were some end-of-line
> characters in my files. Obviously, I am both a loser and a liar and I
> made your point.
Mistakes are one thing, playing them off as meaningless is another.
You will not escape your destiny because you earned it.
Why should the adminstrators of your school ignore you dissembling?
Does your school have an honor system?
Why let you go?
Would you let any of your students?
Would you?
Can you give an honest answer, or will you not lie again?
There is NO ANSWER. Your previous lies tell who you are.
You will simply say whatever you think works bests for YOU.
> Geez, that's quite a victory. On the other hand, I fixed the errors
> and gave two more so-called perfect tweets. This shows that even a
> person too stupid to count can solve your puzzle, though it might take
> him two tries.
Do you give your students two tries?
Can they get a 100 on a test if they just say, sorry? I didn't meant
that?
Why do you ask more of life than you give to the people who rely on
you? Depend on you?
Trust you?
Why should the world be kinder to you than you are to your own
students?
Who are you?
Why do you beg for charity?
Failure is a lesson, it's not your life. Or it wasn't your life
before you chose to prove that no matter what you say, what you
"teach", what words pour from your mouth to your students. you have no
concept of what the truth is.
You are a person who says what it takes to get what you want.
You are not an educator.
You are a liar.
The truth is to you, just a word. So what really can you teach
anyone?
James Harris
Jesse F. Hughes
> Mistakes are one thing, playing them off as meaningless is another.
>
> You will not escape your destiny because you earned it.
>
> Why should the adminstrators of your school ignore you dissembling?
>
> Does your school have an honor system?
>
> Why let you go?
>
> Would you let any of your students?
>
> Would you?
>
> Can you give an honest answer, or will you not lie again?
>
> There is NO ANSWER. Your previous lies tell who you are.
>
> You will simply say whatever you think works bests for YOU.
Yes, yes, you get considerable mileage over a miscount.
Of course, your first tweet in this thread involved a grammatical
error, so you "lied" to the same extent that I "lied". Worse, you
continued to insist that "criteria is" is perfectly good English,
despite evidence to the contrary.
Weird how a simple error on my part is so much more significant than a
simple error on your part.
Anyway, you've made your point. I am unworthy because I accidentally
counted a newline character. Consequently, my students will lose
respect for me, my school will hold disciplinary hearings and my puppy
will become cold and distant. I get it, I get it.
(Of course, it still remains obvious that your little puzzle was a
hell of a lot easier than you thought. Could you really have believed
that only one or two 140 character strings would satisfy this simple
task?)
--
"This page contains information of a type (text/html) that can only be
viewed with the appropriate Plug-in. Click OK to download Plugin."
--- Netscape 4.7 error message
Mark Murray
> (Of course, it still remains obvious that your little puzzle was a
> hell of a lot easier than you thought. Could you really have believed
> that only one or two 140 character strings would satisfy this simple
> task?)
Yes, but he was lying.
M
Lits O'Hate
> I posted a perfect tweet today, defined to be 140 characters that is
> grammatical, which defines itself. Can that accomplishment be
> matched?
>
> Here it is, the perfect tweet:
>
> In my opinion, crucial criteria for a perfect tweet is that it be
> EXACTLY 140 characters, have few if any abbreviations, and is
> grammatical.
>
> sentence is itself the perfect tweet, can that accomplishment be
> matched? Can you write another tweet that defines itself as a perfect
> tweet by those rules which is itself a perfect tweet?
>
> Seems to me one option for attack would be to find synonyms of the
> same length for any of the words. Otherwise it's a matter of finding
> combinations with the same meaning where it MAY be impossible in the
> English language.
>
> So it's a challenge. Go for it.
That's remarkable, James! Is it possible to create a perfect
tweet that can be used to express the core problem with the
algebraic integers?
--
"Failure is not just a word. It's a verb." -- James Harris
JSH
> JSH <jst...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Mistakes are one thing, playing them off as meaningless is another.
>
> > You will not escape your destiny because you earned it.
>
> > Why should the adminstrators of your school ignore you dissembling?
>
> > Does your school have an honor system?
>
> > Why let you go?
>
> > Would you let any of your students?
>
> > Would you?
>
> > Can you give an honest answer, or will you not lie again?
>
> > There is NO ANSWER. Your previous lies tell who you are.
>
> > You will simply say whatever you think works bests for YOU.
>
> Yes, yes, you get considerable mileage over a miscount.
>
> Of course, your first tweet in this thread involved a grammatical
> error, so you "lied" to the same extent that I "lied". Worse, you
> continued to insist that "criteria is" is perfectly good English,
> despite evidence to the contrary.
Actually, no. The word "criterion" is falling out of American English
but rather than argue that point I simply did a second tweet that
handled the issue.
I concede the point that criteria is plural, don't think it matters as
I did a perfect tweet defining itself as perfect with it used as
plural, so for that reason it's a non-issue.
> Weird how a simple error on my part is so much more significant than a
> simple error on your part.
Nope. Wrong is wrong.
> Anyway, you've made your point. I am unworthy because I accidentally
> counted a newline character. Consequently, my students will lose
> respect for me, my school will hold disciplinary hearings and my puppy
> will become cold and distant. I get it, I get it.
No. Being wrong is not a problem.
Claiming that failure is meaningless IS a problem.
All you had to do was admit error and move on...
> (Of course, it still remains obvious that your little puzzle was a
> hell of a lot easier than you thought. Could you really have believed
> that only one or two 140 character strings would satisfy this simple
> task?)
No one else that I've seen has given a 140 character tweet which
defines itself as perfect which does not have serious flaws.
That you insinuate otherwise is, sorry, just more of your falsehoods
and yes, your students should hold you accountable, as would you not
them?
Or do you not play by any rules?
James Harris
Mark Murray
> No. Being wrong is not a problem.
Changing your tune.
> Claiming that failure is meaningless IS a problem.
Except when YOU are doing it.
> All you had to do was admit error and move on...
Which he did.
>> (Of course, it still remains obvious that your little puzzle was a
>> hell of a lot easier than you thought. Could you really have believed
>> that only one or two 140 character strings would satisfy this simple
>> task?)
>
> No one else that I've seen has given a 140 character tweet which
> defines itself as perfect which does not have serious flaws.
Liar.
> That you insinuate otherwise is, sorry, just more of your falsehoods
> and yes, your students should hold you accountable, as would you not
> them?
>
> Or do you not play by any rules?
Do you?
M
Frederick Williams
>
> I concede the point that criteria is plural,
_Eventually_ you did.
> All you had to do was admit error and move on...
You should take your own advice.
--
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
rossum
>
>So it's a challenge. Go for it.
>
>
The difficulty of creating a perfect tweet with exactly 140 characters
using correct grammar is such as to make that task almost impossible.
rossum
James Burns
What is more, to stay within the constraints of creating these perfect
tweets (so-called) is almost to guarantee perfectly pointless tweets.
Jim Burns
Tim Rowe
> The word "criterion" has fallen out of standard usage.
No it hasn't. It's still in normal use.
> The sentence:
>
> "The criteria are valid."
>
> Is awkward.
No it isn't. It's normal, correct usage.
> Grammarians!!! Please speak up here!!!
What qualifies as a grammarian? I am doing an English Language degree,
and have completed http://www3.open.ac.uk/courses/bin/p12.dll?C01E301
and http://www3.open.ac.uk/courses/bin/p12.dll?C01E303 with good grades.
And the original "perfect" twitter was *not* correct standard English,
for the reason given.
Tim Rowe
> The perfect tweet must have the following conditions: it must be 140
> characters, be grammatically correct and have few if any
> abbreviations.
Surely a perfect tweet must *satisfy* conditions; I'm not sure what it
means for it to have to *have* them.