"Surprisingly, there is no contemporary record for the actual existence of someone called Arthur."
"This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."
"kidney impaired function" says "This genuinely answered my own problem, thank you!"
Of course I'm always happy to help, but the post was about the Zimmerman-Martin case.
"As the bottom of the shoes, it contacts with ground closely and directly."
"Cain Velasquez, like you said (last year), I'm going to come back and I'm going to take my belt again."
Signed itself "renal failure."
"I wonder how so much effort you place to make one of these magnificent informative web site."
"Really hardly ever do I experience a blog that’s equally educative and entertaining, and without a doubt, you have strike the claw on the brain."
"Hi, I really like your website if I'm sincere."
I’ve hated it reflexively since its beginning. But with time’s passage and deliberation, I’ve come to hate it with deeper, more variegated richness.
I have to say that I pretty much feel the same. And when I say "since its beginning," I mean since I first heard its name, which makes it sound trivial and superficial, which as far as I can tell is the case. My experience with it has been confined to reading "tweets" published elsewhere or the occasional Twitter feed on some web site, and has done nothing but confirm my desire to avoid it. I was briefly tempted recently, when a friend invited me to join, but I resisted and suggested Facebook instead. I'm not wild about Facebook, but it's fun in small doses. I don't hate it.
The rant quoted above is by Matt Labash of The Weekly Standard, and you can read the whole thing here. It's a bit long but worthwhile if you have the same reaction to Twitter.