Tweeter-in-Chief

Our old formula works fine. Shells bells and BANG...http://twitpic.com/ezlay
Is that too complicated?

Ms. Jacoby, I wonder why the post asked you to comment on this question? And I wonder why, as a proclaimed atheist, you chose to address it? The question posed was narrow enough that your answer should clearly be "God does not 'tweet,' because he does not communicate." But I suppose you had to provide a tangent. We all have to pay the bills.

You said "stadtbear" twice.

Hmmm, Muckenfuss, the probability wave has returned yet once again. This time making an error. With so many probability waves lurking on these blogs, it is surprising this does not happen more often.

The probability wave detector shows the insidious nature of these waves:

Observer12,
Observer31,
Yael1,
ivri5678,
Billy8,
nadinebatra,
stadtbear,
Spark1,
Shark2,
Spidermean3,
DOUG_WHITE,
FTH123
MANSOUR112,
hsnkhwj,
Zebra4,
Captn_Ahab
James210
and liveandlove
DOULGASLBARBER
arancia12
Whistling
pgibson
stadtbear
r92531 R.H. Malick
pastorred68
EFAVORITE
SECULARGURU |
Muckenfuss
anti-davidwaters
Carstonio
Concernedex-JewNowLiberated
New world
IVRI#
Homeland1

Susan Jacoby:

Please delete my previous posting, beginning with "Mark Line wrote:"....it was intended for another blog. I got confused. Sorry.

Mark Line wrote:

> In other words, it's meaningless to ask >simply what something (like
> 'definition' or 'dog') means. It's only >meaningful to ask what something
> means to a certain person in a certain >context.

I agree completely. But, for the sake of this discussion, let us set "context" to global and "person" to anonymous.

Let us say that someone has published his own personal dictionary, and in it he has defined "dog" as a flightless land-dwelling mammal. It follows, therefore, that you cannot fault his definition. Do you agree that the case?

For a better topic here abouts
Is life sacred, can this we doubt?

What would an answer actually mean?
If no, would ethics become obscene?

The implications either way
Would be worth some thinking I must say.

I think it odd that awful beer
Be mentioned in a poem here

Just because the name it scans
Though we all know that beer is bland

Ah, yes, Onofrio, but none of those scan...

:D

Pamsm,

Love the verse

But to "only Bud can make a beer" I take exception, on behalf of Guinness, Murphy's, and my homeland's Cooper's.

Cheers :^)

No, no, Pseudo, you have that wrong. It goes like this:

I think that I shall never hear
A poem as lovely as a beer;

From golden base to foamy cap,
The kind that Joe's Bar has on tap.

Poems are made by fools, I fear,
But only Bud can make a beer.

Mere mortals tweet.

God hires James Joyce for explicating the minutia and mundane then has the resulting 3000 page missive edited down to a single page by Borges. God then takes those edited words and from them produces a snail on your sidewalk, one you will probably either ignore or accidently step on.

And so it goes.

Hmmm, is that E.Favorite or EFAVORITE? Probability waves again infecting this blog???

Onofrio,

"Hail and well met, fellow verser."
Then Let us write and move the cursor

For it is boring here abouts
Sans controversy and loud shouts

For what can we learn without debate
Even when it lacks good taste?

With apologies to whoever wrote that...

Tweetspeak

I think that I shall never meet
A poem as lovely as a tweet

A tweet whose distribution spreads
Away across the World Wide Web

A tweet that prays to God all day,
Gets answered with some fool refrain

Upon whose servers tweets have rained
We vainly seek just one with brains

Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tweet.

Of course God tweets.

I'm on His twitter list, aren't you?

"As for technology itself, religion has always adapted quickly to every new form of mass communication. The more simplistic and fundamentalist the faith, the easier the adaptation."

I should think that is why Jacoby loves to blog and we love to comment.

"As for technology itself, religion has always adapted quickly to every new form of mass communication. The more simplistic and fundamentalist the faith, the easier the adaptation."

I should that is why Jacoby loves to blog and we love to comment.

Susan; Very amusing essay.

If there was a god you'd think he'd have his own website - a place where all his believers could congregate and tell him how much they love him, and the blind could ask for new eyes and the lame could ask for legs that work, etcetra etcetra.

But no. He is far too shy to show his face if he has one, and would prefer to pretend not to exist so that we can go on squabbling over him.

Pseudo,

Hail and well met, fellow verser.

"Could they be any more absurd
Than thinking Gods but tweety birds?"

*I taught; I tore up putti. Eat hat!*
- God

Twittersome, yes?

Mayhap Gods are up there to see
Perched up in blackberry trees

Dyspeptic blog's insipid topics
Of Godlike tweets for blog myopics

Could they be any more absurd
Than thinking Gods but tweety birds?

If they expect much more than mirth
They've slipped the surly bonds of earth

Daniel12,

Thank you for your kind words, Daniel. Glad you liked the verse, sir.

Muckenfuss,

"In fact, one might call you a cunning linguist."

;^)

I'll take that as a continent.

Hmmm, "Muckenfuss" (whoever he/she is) notes:

" Neat poem, Onofrio. You are very clever with words.

In fact, one might call you a cunning linguist."

Strange comment or a way to distract us from the real "Muckenfuss"????

Neat poem, Onofrio. You are very clever with words.

In fact, one might call you a cunning linguist.

"Since tweeting is based on the utterly narcissistic notion that every mundane detail of one's life is worth conveying to the outside world ..."
----
Susan,

If you replace "tweeting" with "column writing" and "mundane detail of one's life" with "mundane thought and opinion that passes through one's head", then you would have a pretty solid definition of op-ed journalism. I would say that at least columnists realize that their opinions aren't coming from an invisible divine space fairy, but then how would I explain Chuck Colson?

earlier vessels???lol

The High priests were the Stones!

God "overturned" the Angels decision to eliminate that vessal.

oar? , ore!

Jay

Onofrio, your poem was just super. Equal to what you read of the best poets. The grasp of form--structure of thought and carrying through of idea and knowing when to end--cannot be improved. You should write a book of poetry.

Hmmm, or maybe this topic was suggested by one "Homeland1" to give him/her gibberish fodder??

How might God’s mighty tweeting sound?

A cosmic finch with comets downed?

Or more a bleat of teeming herds,

treading under hoof their t-rds,

while hounds and shepherds, toiling hard,

goad them to the slaughter yard.

Perhaps it plays, this tweet, like strains

of Bach distending serpent veins

across the brows of choristers,

beside the pulpit’s balusters.

And then again, the tweet may seep

through daylit dreams as the children sleep,

and clutch their sun with screeching chill,

twig fingers at the window sill.

This could only be the work of "Muckenfuss'" creator/god!!!

The more simplistic and fundamentalist the faith, the easier the adaptation. After all, if God is everywhere--and always was, always will be, and always remains the same--then "HE" (a he/Him/His god(s) System) anticipated (predicted?) computers and the internet (The DIGITAL-UMMAH!) is in Fact [G-D is NEVER] Never a 'HE" or Him nor a "She"!

Learn to Flout & Blurt ""IT" (more than the 99 Names in the Quran/Koran et al!

I'm speechless, too.

Susan, you are apparently a real good sport to think up even two paragraphs to write on this subject.

But I am sure someone will read it, and be deeply offended.

Big deal.

"Are social media tools a blessing or a curse for people of faith? Should we use digital technology to commune with the divine? Does God tweet?"

I'm speechless. Who the hell thought this one up?