<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sex Blog Posts From Twitterland</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.erosblog.com/2009/12/03/sex-blog-posts-from-twitterland/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2009/12/03/sex-blog-posts-from-twitterland/</link>
	<description>Sex Blogging, Gratuitous Nudity, Kinky Sex, Sundry Sensuality</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 07:00:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seraph</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2009/12/03/sex-blog-posts-from-twitterland/#comment-114714</link>
		<dc:creator>Seraph</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:45:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=4253#comment-114714</guid>
		<description>Wonderful comment about trolls in the comments of Matisse&#039;s Stranger article:

&quot;Do you think the mean, dumb commenters come back to the site, read others&#039; commenting on how mean and dumb they are, and jerk off furiously? I&#039;m guessing it&#039;s some kind of nonconsensual public humiliation fetish, or why would they bother reading stuff they know they won&#039;t like?&quot;

from one AnathemaT.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wonderful comment about trolls in the comments of Matisse&#8217;s Stranger article:</p>
<p>&#8220;Do you think the mean, dumb commenters come back to the site, read others&#8217; commenting on how mean and dumb they are, and jerk off furiously? I&#8217;m guessing it&#8217;s some kind of nonconsensual public humiliation fetish, or why would they bother reading stuff they know they won&#8217;t like?&#8221;</p>
<p>from one AnathemaT.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bacchus</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2009/12/03/sex-blog-posts-from-twitterland/#comment-114472</link>
		<dc:creator>Bacchus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:51:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=4253#comment-114472</guid>
		<description>More twitter link confusion.

I made a twitter using this URL:

http://www.erosblog.com/2009/12/05/vintage-nudes-restored/

Which was fine because it fit with what I had to say.

To my horror, the link got turned into a bt.ly link.  Evil blind link, and it looks like &lt;b&gt;I&lt;/b&gt; did it!  Delete, delete, delete!

Then I went looking for the FAQ, which says:  &quot;if you paste in a link that is less than 30 characters, we&#039;ll post it in its entirety.  If it&#039;s longer than 30 characters, we&#039;ll convert it to a shorter URL.&quot; 

Huh.  That&#039;s odd.  Two days ago, I posted this twitter:

http://twitter.com/ErosBlogBacchus/status/6306595076

Which contains this link:

http://www.erosblog.com/2009/12/03/sex-blog-posts-from-twitterland/

That one didn&#039;t get eaten by the evil link eater and blindifier!

compare:

This sentence is 30 chars long
http://www.erosblog.com/2009/12/03/sex-blog-posts-from-twitterland/ (70 chars, not eaten)
http://www.erosblog.com/2009/12/05/vintage-nudes-restored/ (59 chars, eaten)

I hate to spam my twitter stream with experiments.  Can anybody explain what&#039;s going on?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More twitter link confusion.</p>
<p>I made a twitter using this URL:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.erosblog.com/2009/12/05/vintage-nudes-restored/" rel="nofollow">http://www.erosblog.com/2009/12/05/vintage-nudes-restored/</a></p>
<p>Which was fine because it fit with what I had to say.</p>
<p>To my horror, the link got turned into a bt.ly link.  Evil blind link, and it looks like <b>I</b> did it!  Delete, delete, delete!</p>
<p>Then I went looking for the FAQ, which says:  &#8220;if you paste in a link that is less than 30 characters, we&#8217;ll post it in its entirety.  If it&#8217;s longer than 30 characters, we&#8217;ll convert it to a shorter URL.&#8221; </p>
<p>Huh.  That&#8217;s odd.  Two days ago, I posted this twitter:</p>
<p><a href="http://twitter.com/ErosBlogBacchus/status/6306595076" rel="nofollow">http://twitter.com/ErosBlogBacchus/status/6306595076</a></p>
<p>Which contains this link:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.erosblog.com/2009/12/03/sex-blog-posts-from-twitterland/" rel="nofollow">http://www.erosblog.com/2009/12/03/sex-blog-posts-from-twitterland/</a></p>
<p>That one didn&#8217;t get eaten by the evil link eater and blindifier!</p>
<p>compare:</p>
<p>This sentence is 30 chars long<br />
<a href="http://www.erosblog.com/2009/12/03/sex-blog-posts-from-twitterland/" rel="nofollow">http://www.erosblog.com/2009/12/03/sex-blog-posts-from-twitterland/</a> (70 chars, not eaten)<br />
<a href="http://www.erosblog.com/2009/12/05/vintage-nudes-restored/" rel="nofollow">http://www.erosblog.com/2009/12/05/vintage-nudes-restored/</a> (59 chars, eaten)</p>
<p>I hate to spam my twitter stream with experiments.  Can anybody explain what&#8217;s going on?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Faustus</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2009/12/03/sex-blog-posts-from-twitterland/#comment-114431</link>
		<dc:creator>Faustus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:08:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=4253#comment-114431</guid>
		<description>@Bacchus

Obviously, I now have to go off and do some research.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Bacchus</p>
<p>Obviously, I now have to go off and do some research.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bacchus</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2009/12/03/sex-blog-posts-from-twitterland/#comment-114427</link>
		<dc:creator>Bacchus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:11:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=4253#comment-114427</guid>
		<description>Lilly, I sort of understand the desire/need to control access to things -- to have, I guess, semi-private channels that are available by permission only.  My deal, though, is a policy that I developed when I first started blogging, and would come across all sorts of friends-locked LiveJournals.  

When I&#039;m blogging, I&#039;m swimming in an ocean of material, trying not to drown in it.  There&#039;s more published every minute than I could read in a month -- and that&#039;s just on the &quot;open&quot; internet, the part where the links work for everyone and there aren&#039;t any passwords or secret knocks.  

So, by policy, I don&#039;t even try to read or look at anything that&#039;s friendslocked or passworded or semi-private.  Anything like that is symbolically flagged &quot;this is not for the whole world to see.&quot;  And I&#039;m a blogger who can&#039;t even manage to skim all the &lt;b&gt;public&lt;/b&gt; stuff that&#039;s out there.  Why would I waste my time getting permission to look at controlled stuff, and then actually looking at that stuff, when I don&#039;t even have time to look at all the &lt;i&gt;open&lt;/i&gt; stuff that I need to see every day?

So, I conceptualize anything that&#039;s behind an access control as being dead information, not part of the live internet and thus not part of my conceptual realm.  I don&#039;t have time for it and I don&#039;t have room for it in my head.  It might as well not exist for me, because knowing stuff I can&#039;t blog about is only going to make my blogging life more difficult, never richer or easier.

I hope that&#039;s clearer than my twitter-length explanation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lilly, I sort of understand the desire/need to control access to things &#8212; to have, I guess, semi-private channels that are available by permission only.  My deal, though, is a policy that I developed when I first started blogging, and would come across all sorts of friends-locked LiveJournals.  </p>
<p>When I&#8217;m blogging, I&#8217;m swimming in an ocean of material, trying not to drown in it.  There&#8217;s more published every minute than I could read in a month &#8212; and that&#8217;s just on the &#8220;open&#8221; internet, the part where the links work for everyone and there aren&#8217;t any passwords or secret knocks.  </p>
<p>So, by policy, I don&#8217;t even try to read or look at anything that&#8217;s friendslocked or passworded or semi-private.  Anything like that is symbolically flagged &#8220;this is not for the whole world to see.&#8221;  And I&#8217;m a blogger who can&#8217;t even manage to skim all the <b>public</b> stuff that&#8217;s out there.  Why would I waste my time getting permission to look at controlled stuff, and then actually looking at that stuff, when I don&#8217;t even have time to look at all the <i>open</i> stuff that I need to see every day?</p>
<p>So, I conceptualize anything that&#8217;s behind an access control as being dead information, not part of the live internet and thus not part of my conceptual realm.  I don&#8217;t have time for it and I don&#8217;t have room for it in my head.  It might as well not exist for me, because knowing stuff I can&#8217;t blog about is only going to make my blogging life more difficult, never richer or easier.</p>
<p>I hope that&#8217;s clearer than my twitter-length explanation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dangerous Lilly</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2009/12/03/sex-blog-posts-from-twitterland/#comment-114424</link>
		<dc:creator>Dangerous Lilly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:44:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=4253#comment-114424</guid>
		<description>I can see your point about the link shorteners - and I would have similar concerns but usually the people I follow are trustworthy and tend to give a quick recap of where they&#039;re pointing you. 

Also, your comment regarding the private/locked Twitter accounts - most people do it to keep out the wrong people. Future employers, family, etc could possibly find your twitter account and man there&#039;d be hell to pay! Since I tend to sometimes Tweet things that could get me in a bit of hot water...it&#039;s better to lock. I approve anybody thats a blogger, and the rest I have to ponder.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can see your point about the link shorteners &#8211; and I would have similar concerns but usually the people I follow are trustworthy and tend to give a quick recap of where they&#8217;re pointing you. </p>
<p>Also, your comment regarding the private/locked Twitter accounts &#8211; most people do it to keep out the wrong people. Future employers, family, etc could possibly find your twitter account and man there&#8217;d be hell to pay! Since I tend to sometimes Tweet things that could get me in a bit of hot water&#8230;it&#8217;s better to lock. I approve anybody thats a blogger, and the rest I have to ponder.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bacchus</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2009/12/03/sex-blog-posts-from-twitterland/#comment-114417</link>
		<dc:creator>Bacchus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:51:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=4253#comment-114417</guid>
		<description>Viviane, I&#039;ve got serious issues with link shorteners.  I know they are the cultural standard on Twitter, but they turn every link into a blind link, you have to click them on faith because you can&#039;t see where they take you.

After ten years of internet aversion training, I have a deep-seated aversion to clicking on a blind link.  If I can&#039;t see where it&#039;s going, my instincts tell me it&#039;s going to a Rickroll (at best) or a horrid Russian take-over-your-browser-with-hostile-javascript destination (more likely).  

We always assume other people are like us.  If I wouldn&#039;t click a blind link on a bet, it&#039;s hard for me to believe anybody else will.  And short-form erosblog links (when I omit the www and use the ?p=#### format) are pretty short.  (Although I&#039;d like to know why Twitter html-izes the first part of the link only, ignoring the ?p=#### part.) 

The other thing I hate about link shorteners is that they are more ephemeral than actual links -- you&#039;ve got to trust the link-shortening company to keep the translation software and database up and running.  Again, probably not a rational objection in a Twitter universe, but still a deeply ingrained hatred in me after seven years of fighting link rot (and mostly, losing).  

Finally, when I use the retweet button, the item I retweet publishes instantly.  I don&#039;t have a chance to edit or add something, making length irrelevant.  Yet I&#039;m assuming that your concern about link length is because you want to retweet with commentary.  Is there something I&#039;m doing wrong, or are you talking about a different thing from using the retweet button?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Viviane, I&#8217;ve got serious issues with link shorteners.  I know they are the cultural standard on Twitter, but they turn every link into a blind link, you have to click them on faith because you can&#8217;t see where they take you.</p>
<p>After ten years of internet aversion training, I have a deep-seated aversion to clicking on a blind link.  If I can&#8217;t see where it&#8217;s going, my instincts tell me it&#8217;s going to a Rickroll (at best) or a horrid Russian take-over-your-browser-with-hostile-javascript destination (more likely).  </p>
<p>We always assume other people are like us.  If I wouldn&#8217;t click a blind link on a bet, it&#8217;s hard for me to believe anybody else will.  And short-form erosblog links (when I omit the www and use the ?p=#### format) are pretty short.  (Although I&#8217;d like to know why Twitter html-izes the first part of the link only, ignoring the ?p=#### part.) </p>
<p>The other thing I hate about link shorteners is that they are more ephemeral than actual links &#8212; you&#8217;ve got to trust the link-shortening company to keep the translation software and database up and running.  Again, probably not a rational objection in a Twitter universe, but still a deeply ingrained hatred in me after seven years of fighting link rot (and mostly, losing).  </p>
<p>Finally, when I use the retweet button, the item I retweet publishes instantly.  I don&#8217;t have a chance to edit or add something, making length irrelevant.  Yet I&#8217;m assuming that your concern about link length is because you want to retweet with commentary.  Is there something I&#8217;m doing wrong, or are you talking about a different thing from using the retweet button?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Viviane</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2009/12/03/sex-blog-posts-from-twitterland/#comment-114416</link>
		<dc:creator>Viviane</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:34:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=4253#comment-114416</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m glad you are enjoying your time on Twitter, and am happy to see you there.

One small request. Would you please use a link shortener such as bit.ly (tinyurl is blocked by Zonealarm). It&#039;d make it easier to retweet your Tweets.

Thanks, Pop! ;-D</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m glad you are enjoying your time on Twitter, and am happy to see you there.</p>
<p>One small request. Would you please use a link shortener such as bit.ly (tinyurl is blocked by Zonealarm). It&#8217;d make it easier to retweet your Tweets.</p>
<p>Thanks, Pop! ;-D</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

