Can the Creature Teach? And Another Announcement.


Before I actually start this blog post, I’m going to start this blog post with something.

Breathe in.

Breathe out.

Guys, I’m keeping the blog.

You could say I hit a real homerun… If my name were Nelson Cruz.

Did I apologize for the GIFS? Because I should really apologize for the GIFS.

Did I mention I’m also four news people from the 70s?


With all of that amazing celebrating out of the way, I can say I’ll try to be a weekly blog person about… something. I suppose whatever is in my head will somehow end up splattered on a post here every week.

Alright with that out of the way:



I want to teach the first Shakespearean Shop class. I would embed famous Shakespearean quotes within certain car parts. I would first place a few quotes from the “Tempest” in the windshield wipers, because it takes place on the ocean it would be totally relevant. The quotes would have to be discovered in the correct order so I would know my students followed proper directions I laid out for them.

For example, they would first find “We are such stuff.” Then they would find “As dreams are made on, our little life,” on the next step, before they finally end on “Is rounded with a sleep.”

That way I’m maximizing (hehe) their potential and I’m killing two birds with one stone. Because fuck birds who are allergic to stones.

Wait. That’s not all. Why should I not incorporate Mark Z. Danielewski’s House of Leaves into an advanced Physics class? Just imagine if I made only one number blue with nonsensical footnotes. I can see the questions and puzzled looks now.

The new textbook for the post-modern era? It can be included in everything from theoretical quantum mechanics to managing your finances!

“Professor ThatMaxGuy, why is the number two in blue in every formula and why does the history of plastic Gatorade bottles have to do with how soon a train will arrive?”

“Hey professor ThatMaxGuy, that’s obviously a canned response from a video by the author. Can you please tell me what any of this means?”

“This is your sovereignty and what you make of it is yours. Just keep it, Max Student.”

“This why I don’t fucking talk to myself on my blog.”

“Would you like to read House of Leaves: How the World Turns. A Physics Love Story?”


“You’re just killing space aren’t you?”

“Like you don’t.”

Well that was a tangent.

And here is why.

From “The Loss of the Creature” article of course. The author mentions that it would be a great idea to combine subjects. For example he wants to:

propose that English poetry and biology should be taught as usual, but that at irregular intervals, poetry students should find dogfishes on their desks and biology students should be find Shakespeare sonnets on their dissecting boards. I am serious in declaring that a Sarah Lawrence English major who began poking about in a dogfish with a bobby pin would learn more in thirty minutes than a biology major in a whole semester.

First of all: lol wut?

Second of all:

lol wut? I mean, LOL WUT TO DA CHOPPA!

The concept sounds like something I’d make up with my friends for one.

“Guys…How ’bout a class that teaches you biology while you-wait for it-read various Shakespearean sonnets?”

“What?” “Would the sonnets be on the tray they’re using for dissection or something?”

“You know what?!” Points finger enthusiastically at friend. “That’s a great fucking idea, man!”

“I’d call it ENGBIO 486: Dissection of Shakespearean Themes and Amphibia.”



I suppose I can appreciate that the author tried to think outside the box and create new paradigms for learning a diverse selection of subjects. Although that entire quote feels like it was spawned from a weird lunch break discussion about how to consolidate costs and make teaching more efficient. It ends up sounding like a made-up scenario or an SNL skit because of how ridiculous it sounds.

There are more ways to learn and reach people, because of course there are, but can we move past the first draft of “Woah, dude,” thoughts and try something less…hilarious.




Could Use a Burger Now



“Hey, Max, would you like to try our new extreme bacon, ham, double bacon, beef, werewolf, predator, BURGER EXTREME COMBO BURGER AVAILABLE EXCLUSIVELY AT CARL’S JR. IN EXTREME MAN PORTIONS.”

“What the fuck are we waiting for, invisible voice? GIVE ME FIVE RIGHT RIGHT NOW, BRO.”

I would hurriedly eat  more of what was being offered to prove my EXTREME manhood, because since I’m a college aged male, I have to dig right the fuck in to something with a shitload of protein, fifteen different kinds of meat, and something with enough cholesterol to give me enough heart attacks to last a few more lifetimes, BECAUSE EXTREME.

I’m certain this is how fast food commercials are talking to me. At least anything made by Carl’s JR, whenever they show the new burger of the month. Why the fuck would I not want a pineapple burger just because I saw some guy eating it, and then a really hot chick eat one.

It’s not that specific commercial, because believe it or not, Carl’s JR has made so many of these kinds of commercials, it’s hard to find just one of them. I can’t believe they’ve made so many gimmicky burgers either. Poor people. At least the models got to eat something.

Oh right, I’m avoiding the obvious.

I’ve said Carl’s JR about fifty times and that means something. When I immediately thought of sexism in media, I thought of their commercials. It wasn’t even a stretch either. It was as natural as assuming the sky was blue. I admit it was very effective. Hell, they still are very effective. For one, have you seen anyone burgers, or you know, ANYTHING at those angles?

As a part of the dumb college male demographic they were clearly shooting for, all I remember is that Kate Upton is hot and that the burger she’s holding is making her hotter.

Now I’m certain Carl’s JR did not really care how sexist it was perceived as long as it sold whatever gimmick burger they had for the sales period, but wow, did they fucking ever make a sexist ass commercial that I could not pry my eyes away from.

According to Carrie Packwood Freeman and Debra Merskin’s article “Having it His Way:”

analysis shows how much animals are feminized and women are animalized and both are often sexualized. (Freeman 281)

(Note to my spell check: “sexualized” is not misspelled as serialized and “animalized” is not a misspelling of annualized.)

If that Carl’s JR commercial did not do that then I would love to see your brilliant deconstructionist breakdown of the fast food commercial. You clearly have much to teach me and the world.

But really, the way she is posed is like a poster. Upton was in many ways almost exactly like the burger, both objects to be idealized and consumed by male gaze helped built by advertising.

Another reason why these commercials are so effective is man’s need to be men. We can’t simply be men typing at a computer and watching Netflix (Spellcheck note: It knows how to spell Netflix!) all the time. WE MUST BE MEN AND MEN DO MAN THINGS. HEAR ME ROAR, MANSTYLE!

Because of this history of men as meat-eaters, the men of today who eschew meat often face the stigmatization of being labeled effeminate. Adams cites Nutritionist Jean Meyer, who believes that in modern society ‘the more men sit at their desks all day, the more they want to be reassured about their maleness in eating those large slabs of bleeding meat which are the last symbols of machismo. (Freeman 280)

Oh shit do I feel hungry even quoting that. Does anyone feel like a burger? Sure I may contributing to the negative stereotype of man’s need to be man, but I could really go for a disgusting Five Guys burger with a ridiculous amount of fries.

Oh but back on topic. I guess.

I do agree with most of what the article says. Carl’s JR does emphasize its models and burgers as objects to be gazed upon and consumed like objects. I do agree that humanity has it’s history of consuming meat, but I don’t think it’s completely correct to assume the reason I want a burger is because I need to in order to claim some vestige of my ancestor’s manhood.

Fast food commercials are ruthlessly sexist and misleading, but can’t I have a burger… because I just like burgers?


Guys, I’m full of 21st Century Skillz.


21st century skills. 21st century skills. 21st century skills. 21st century skills. 21st century skills.

Okay, I’m think I’m done with that now.

*Examines brain* Sorry. Guess not.

I fit five 21st century skills in one sentence, but does that mean I have them? Sure I typed them out really fast. Just like I’m typing now. I would not say typing originated in the 21st century (skills), but it feels like their importance is wide spread and not just for stereotypes anymore.

My fingers feel dirty and decrepit now.

So glad I have this rather than a typewriter that’s probably a biohazard by now.

Typing has become a necessary skill in the 21st century. I had classes devoted to typing and beating the shit out of Mavis. Typing quickly really has changed in meaning, I feel. I mean if you’re not at least sixty words per minute, you might as well pull to the side of typing highway and let the other typers through because I’ve seen Lord of the Ring movies on Netflix with faster conclusions than you. It really is a 21st century skill that matches the pace of modern 21st century society.

YEAHHHH! I OWNED YOU MAVIS. You were also my driving tutor apparently.


Our typing has improved with our need to constantly update our statuses on Twitter and Facebook. If my best friend can’t find out I ate at Five Guys in less than a minute on a status update, he or she will never care.


Do you know what else is a 21st century skill?

Watching Enterprise on Netflix while writing this blog post with ten tabs open in two windows just because I “need” all of that information, both for leisure and intellectual purposes. If that is not a 21st century skill then I don’t know what the hell a 21st century skill is.

Though I suppose Mike Rose was not concerned about my Netflix habits, though he should, if he wants me to remember season 2 of Enterprise. But alas, he has other priorities in his article, such as, the first five words in this post. 21st century skills. He summarizes them thusly:

Twenty-first century skills include the ability to use a range of electronic technologies to access, synthesize and apply information. The ability to think critically and creatively and evaluate the products of one’s thinking. The ability to communicate effectively and collaborate with others, particularly in diverse and multicultural settings.

Well fine.

If I took out “electronic technologies” anyone could apply this to any century. Which is, you know, the point.

The range of skills is admirable, as is the intention that they apply to all students—an equity imperative. But what’s new about them? They sound like the skills one would have gotten from a good 20th century education—or from a lot further back than that.

There it is.

But there’s a reason I mentioned Netflix and having ten tabs open. I feel a legitimate 21st century skill may be the ability to multitask while using electronic devices, specifically on the Internet. This is helpful while conducting research for a paper, as I couldn’t imagine having less than a dozen tabs open for research and YouTube purposes.

I also used my 21st century skills for our MRW project. More specifically, I used Twitter and Netflix simultaneously in these posts here: “Following” and “30 Rock,” and I watched them too.

Live tweeting sounds like the most 21st century skill I’ve ever had. They’re both very much 21st century technologies and using them both in conjunction requires that I have the ability to multitask at least competently. Granted, multitasking did not start in the 21st century, but multitasking multiple web browser tabs, PDF reader tabs, computer files, and social media are 21st century skills because I’m essentially handling various programs that were not even invented when I watched X-Men on FOX in the 90s.

Rose does have his points though, as listed here:

The 21st-century-skills philosophy of education is an economic one. The primary goal is to create efficient and effective workers. Twenty-first century skills for the 21st century organization man and woman.

No disagreement here. When a large organizational force, such as, I don’t know, the public education section or the collegiate system deems that something must be taught and label it as something like “21st-century-skills,” the reason is usually primarily economical. Forget anything involving bettering the system or the student’s lives.

I made another blog post. Goddamn, that is really a 21st century skill.

Oh, 25 “21st century skill” sightings by the way. Now 26.

I Don’t Need to Write to Anyone! Including Me!


Yeah… Take that academia.

I wrote something down. It was not much of something really. I was in a chat, discussing my hobby with someone else who shares the same hobby.

Now I must ask myself, was I writing for that person, or was I writing for myself and that person just happened to be the recipient?

I don’t really know. I wrote what I wrote because it pleased me and it was probably cool for the other guy too since he got to chat about his hobby to someone who would understand what he was saying.

I don’t really consider my audience for the most part when I write, especially in a casual setting. The only time I do is when I’m trying to write for a grade. I just felt a bit of guilt typing that. I feel guilty for writing for someone else only when that person holds one of the keys to my future. It feels like I’m a circus performer only allowed to go through one specific routine because that’s how they like it and that is the way it’s supposed to be done.

How can an intensely private act like writing be considered in a public context? Does anyone write live on television or Internet streams? Is that even a thing that people would watch anyway? Assuming they pump it without enough slow motion and sound effects to cover the fact that it would be a show where you watch a guy type words on a keyboard, I still don’t think it would cover up the fact that writing is something that is done in private and very boring to watch unless we were all mind readers.

If Indian dramas can make standing in a room sound exciting with lasers, maybe it can help with making writing look exciting.

But now Simpsons.

Stop asking why there’s a Simpson’s clip here and just follow my twisted analogy. There are times where I feel like the audience I’m supposed to be writing towards is McGarnagle and I’m Billy. Minus the death. (Sorry for the spoilers).

So the point is… I just don’t think about writing for an audience unless I’m graded for it. If I were to be consumed by how I thought everyone would receive my text then I would lose my mind and never get anything done. Oh hell, I’m not even sure I write what’s beneficial to myself. I wouldn’t say every tweet on twitter was of mind bending excellence.

Except this one of course. That just displays my greatness. By greatness, I mean laziness, which in my mind is like the same thing.

Oh damn, where was I?



Elbow wants me to turn off the audience. Great I already did about four hundred words ago. But, Elbow’s article “Closing my Eyes As I Speak: An Argument for Ignoring Audience” advocates the writer to ignore the audience. I suppose the title sort of gave that away.

One of the best ways teachers can help students learn to turn off audience awareness and write in the desert island mode–to turn off the babble of outside voices in the head and listen better to quiet inner voices–is to be a special kind of private audience to them, to be a reader who nurtures by trusting and believing in the writer. (Elbow 65)

I largely agree with Elbow here because I basically do pretend I’m on a desert island without a Wilson. I would prefer to write because I just like to write. Maybe someone finds it funny or enlightening or maybe someone finds it repulsive and offensive. It doesn’t really matter. There’s one thing I take some issue with here though.

“quiet inner voices.”

One of the greatest insecurities a writer has to face isn’t always the outside audience, but inner one.

We have to deal with our inner thoughts that say we suck and what we’re writing isn’t worth writing. One of the most important reasons to avoid thinking about any audience is because the writer has to deal with that inner voice saying how much your writing sucks.

That’s what my voice persists to this day and I’ve kept on writing. It’s an intensely private act that one must overcome in order to write. There is no time or room to consider writing for anyone besides yourself. At least, that is how I see my writing.

Fuck you, inner doubt and fuck trying to write to anyone but yourself. Except grades. Oh please give me a good grade.

A Question to ponder: 

Are there times when writing that you have to silence your inner voice? 

Authority Doesn’t Equal Enlightenment


Let us pretend for a moment that I am a sixty-five year old white male. I have worked all my life trying to make my used car sale lot the best in Wyoming. I even managed to attain an associates in business management because my wife would prefer I set a good example for my three children and eventually their grand children. I did get one when they were in their early teen years, so the amount of teenage resentment and fatherly love was about even. Just kidding, there’s no such thing as a middle school student who does not despise their parents.

You hate my imaginary used car salesman, do you not?


Okay, what the hell does this have to do with anything? And why should you give any credence to a used car salesman, even if it is an imaginary one? It’s my example so I’ll get there. Welcome to the hell that is privilege and authority someone else abuses.

Welcome to the DANGER ZONE. I mean, HELL! For the source.

But like any person, he has opinions, but unlike everyone, he may have the authority to have people believe him. He’s a successful business man, he has a degree, and he’s an old white guy, so he has an enormous amount of authority to lend to his opinions even if he never personally experienced the problems he’s talking about.

So when he complains about “the rap music” or says that poor people simply need to work harder to attain their goals, we should probably just nod and say “Oh, you used car salesman guy,” and proceed to completely ignore an opinion he has no real basis or understanding for despite his success in society.

Just because, he has, the uh, thing. You know, the thing? You should do something like…

Thanks, Cartman.

Which after a long delay leads to the point and that very same point is touched upon in Jacqueline Jones Royster’s “When the First Voice You Hear is Not Your Own.” Just because one has the authority to say such things doesn’t mean they are correct, no matter how well they have done in other facets of life.

Colleagues who occupy a place of entitlement different from my own talk about history and achievements of people from my ethnic group, or even about their perceptions of our struggles. I have been compelled to listen as they have comfortably claimed the authority to engage in the construction of knowledge and meaning about me and mine. Without paying  even a passing nod to the fact that sometimes a substantive version of that knowledge might make me quite impatient with gaps in their understanding of my community (Royster 30)

Well damn, that must suck. Okay post over.

Oh fine, I’ll elaborate.

It is frustrating to hear someone comment on your circumstances when that person has never experienced them. He or she has basically never walked in your shoes, even for a day. If the sixty-five year old white guy from my first example told me he understood the plight of Japanese Americans throughout history, because he knows what to do. He also has an associates in BUSINESS MANAGEMENT. That would infuriate me. Now replace Wayne Brady with Max Brewer when I hear this…

It’s just so upsetting, isn’t it?

Even in an academic setting, it seems prevalent, if we’re to take Royster’s account only. To think, even in a context that is meant to provide discourse and understanding over a variety of topics, academic or otherwise, we are sorta stuck with this appeal to authority that often seems to deceive as it does to help.

Just to have someone tell you that they know you’re circumstances better than you do, the one who has lived in them and had to experience them, rather than study them as a matter of academic curiosity. Should I just say “Oh man, it sure would be great if third world countries stopped being so poor, so why don’t they just join the rest of us and keep up?” Well no, that’s awful and uninformative, but sadly it seems to be a real occurrence, simply due human nature those with authority who speak on such matters without considering the circumstances responsible for such an lifestyle.

But Royster has a plan.

Those of us who love our own communities, we think, most deeply, most uncompromisingly, without reservation for what they and also are not, must set aside our misgivings about strangers in the interest of the possibility of deeper understanding (and for the more idealistic among us, the possibility of global peace) (33)

This seems a little idealistic doesn’t it? The goals are admirable, but I’m not sure they’re entirely realistic. Sure, the intent is great, but Royster offers an idealistic solution in a realistic world. Even Royster seems to admit it’s idealistic in the grand scheme of things. But goddamn, wouldn’t it be great if it happened? That way I won’t feel like saying

Then I can say in a puddle of my own sweat tears, like Ben Sisko from Deep Space Nine, and say “IT IS REAL.”

Goddammit, I would like me some global peace and understanding, even though I know it’s implausible.

*Note: Forget everything you read here until Tuesday. You know, presentation and shit. 

A Question to ponder:

Is my title correct? Authority does not equal enlightenment? 

Process is Mine

Reddit Thread:

How did Jim Carrey find out about my writing process? Hat tip to for finding the Reddit Thread.

I’m sitting down in a chair facing my computer right now typing this sentence with ten other tabs on in the background. I am trying desperately to come up with a topic or line of reasoning for this third response blog. I see that spring training games start next Wednesday and Watchdogs was fucking delayed until June. Pandora is playing everything related to Hans Zimmer. My fingers wonder why I am torturing them by typing aimlessly. But I have something to tell you, fingers.

It’s not pointless.

I have a process I try to adhere to. Note the keyword try. 

Oh shut up, Yoda.

I’m sorry, I’ve always wanted to type that in an assignment.

I suppose you could say it is a part of my writing process. In fact, that is exactly what it is, big stars for you.


Okay. Not big stars, but you’ve earned them. Hat tip to breakdownsports. No I’m not being sponsored by anyone to write these posts.

My fingers fear that they’ll be pounded into dust long before I come up with any solid line of reasoning for this post. It’s actually a part of my pre-writing process. The weird sort of pre-writing that involves writing. So strange. 

It’s strange because out of all the methods I’ve used over my academic writing career, this is what I have stuck with. Process in writing is different with each writer. What makes me tick and put finger to key does not do the same for everyone else. My process clearly is not the only “right” method because no process is.

That's right. I take my writing ques from an animated alcoholic dog.

That’s right. I take my writing ques from an animated alcoholic dog.

So if there is no right process, how can it be taught?

One must write.

It is that simple, but it is also not easy.

Process is hard to teach, even though it is so important according to Donald M. Murray’s “Teach Writing as a Process not Product”:

What is the process we should teach?… How do you motivate your student to pass through this process, perhaps even pass through it again and again on the same piece of writing? (Murray 4, 5)

Good process requires good motivation and instruction. Process is something we as writers control as it is inherent to ourselves. The example I started with in the beginning of the post may be like so many other processes, but it is not necessarily the same.

The reason process seems so hard to teach is because, well, it must be because we as students and teachers are only allowed to see the end product of someone’s creation with rare exceptions. We know Shakespeare produced great works that forever shaped the English language, but no one really knows how he went about it. No one really knows what his process was.

Sure we were told as students that there are usually three stages in writing: pre-writing, writing writing, and rewriting. Part of the pre-writing, according to Murray is:

the writer focuses on that subject, spots an audience, chooses a form which may carry his subject to his audience. (Murray 4)

Murray leaves out something important about pre-writing, which I feel is the most important as well. Gathering motivation. His pre-writing guideline may have been implicit in that respect, but I feel it’s something worth addressing since that is where the primary problem lies. It’s by far the hardest to address out of all the concerns about teaching writing process too. Because according to Murray, it’s hard for teachers to do a few specific things:

Shutting up. When you are talking he isn’t writing. And you don’t learn a process by talking about it, but by doing it. (Murray 5)

This requires an act of trust on the teacher’s part and the realization that writing is primarily an internal introspective process. Only the writer can decide when and what to write, the teacher must simply learn to stay out of the way after showing the process of writing. Too much emphasis is placed upon writing to what the teacher wants to see, rather than allowing the student to simply follow the process that best suits them.


We should all have our life lessons taught by Patrick Stewart.

By adhering to the process, a specific process, over time, then a student can truly find out how he or she writes. Steps of good process can be taught by teachers, but process solely lays in the hands of the writers. A teacher should allow the students to find their own truths and methods to writing, otherwise they’re not really writing.

Now if you excuse me, I have more keys to hit and tabs to open.

Question to ponder:

What is the most important step in your writing process?


Writing is Technology

Hat Tip to the blog

According to Civilization V, writing is an early research project, thus an early in-game technology, which means it’s a relatively early human invention.

The first caveman etches a symbol for food, sex, and what I am sure is something poignant involving a scratching doing something to another scratching with a sharp scratching.

The point?

A presumably sharp rock or stick was used to-

Oh, the point. I think you could have been more specific if you wanted to know.

Well, I’m sure it was used to etch out something significant. Perhaps to write a message to future cavemen that would have otherwise not have been able to see his amazing creations. Like a deviantart page for cavemen. Pr1m4t1v3 Slatedude needs the world to see his etchings!

Hat tip to Mocrystals for the pic.

One of the earliest cave drawing found in Africa. Another indication that a dead caveman from thousands of years ago is way better at drawing then I am. Also, a lot of points in this pic.

Got to admit, a caveman’s drawings have reached the Internet, even though it took thousands of years. Cavemen like to invest long term.

That was a nice little distraction from the main issue, but what was the purpose of this diatribe?

PSYCH! The exclamation of surprise, not the show. Goddammit. Did it again.

This is the point. Sorry, the point.

According to Janet Emig’s article “Writing as a Mode of Learning,”

writing makes a unique demand in that the writer must engage in ‘deliberate semantics’ in Vygotsky’s elegant phrase, ‘deliberate structuring of the web of meaning.’ Such structuring is required because, for Vygotsky, writing centrally represents an expansion of inner speech. (Emig 12)

Essentially, what is being said is that in writing, one must be more deliberate and thoughtful when crafting a sentence, or otherwise, we may end up in “point” semantics, because it can be so easy to misinterpret even with the proper context. It can be easy to misinterpret because writing is not like normal speech. It is a projection of an inner speech that is processed by the brain and put to paper. Or in this case to screen.

We see the consequences of such misinterpretations in such a technology driven world as ours. Okay, I admit, who the hell has not said this in their time when technology was the greatest peak, bear with me here.

Isn’t context so difficult to interpret on Twitter? Especially for newer users? Let’s look at this one for example.

Now you probably want to say its a creation of pure sarcasm, but can you be sure with just 140 characters? You could look at more writings in the responses to truly understand the context, but even that could be a little whacky. So you might look into a user you already follow and know. How about looking at this retweet edit of the tweet above:

Besides the edits for space, you probably know that the original tweet was made in jest, and was probably made to parody the ignorance of those in power who would ignore ability simply because of sexuality. That was all thanks to my interpretation of the tweet. You’re welcome by the way. I take mentions and retweets. Money would be nice too.

Proper contextualization of tweets is reliant on the interpretations of the users that use Twitter, which is as inextricably entangled with writing. It is as inseparable as writing and technology.

Hilarious Imgur gallery hat tip

Man have we come a long way from deviantart cave drawings and writings. Obviously the standard speed of anyone born in the late 80’s, or the 90’s

Emig states:

2. Writing then is an artificial process; talking is not.

3. Writing then is a technological device–not the wheel, but early enough to qualify as primary technology; talking is organic, natural, earlier…

8. Writing usually results in a visible graphic product; talking usually does not. (Emig 9)

Writing itself, is not given enough credit for being an actual technology, because that is what it is and it is something that has been carried on since, well, humanity learned how to use a pointy rock on cave walls. We only associate the implementation of showing writing as technology, but not the writing itself. The Internet is a great playground for showing various writings to the world, Twitter is great for text messaging on the Internet, but the craft of writing is usually overlooked.

Writing is a craft that requires meticulous arranging to ensure the proper message is sent. It needs particular attention to meanings and context, because it is a technological device that has to be maintained to be used correctly. It is as much craft as it is a tool. A point that must be sharpened if you will.

If modern video games like Civilization V know that much and tell its users that much, then how can it be anything but a major technological advance mankind has used for centuries?

A Question to Ponder:

Do you assume an inherently different context on Twitter than on any other kind of social media service?

Do you know anyone else who ends a fucking blog post on two questions…