ChrisWeigant.com

Won't U B My 100th Follower? Pls?

[ Posted Tuesday, September 14th, 2010 – 16:03 UTC ]

OK, that was an annoying headline, I fully admit. It was annoying to type out, and I can only imagine how annoying it must be to read.

Which should only serve to warn you, this is going to be an annoying column all around. Don't say you haven't been warned, in other words.

Or, as the young'uns would have said, "IOW." Ahem.

I'm writing this column today because I am approaching two milestones in social networking.

And to get in the spirit of the thing, no paragraph today will be longer than 140 characters.

For our older readers, 140 characters is the limit for a single "Tweet," (the too-cute name they have for a message posted) on Twitter.

Like I said, annoying. Sorry. We could talk about the Delaware primary today instead, but it's really only worthy of a single sentence:

"Delaware Republicans choose at polls today between electability and Tea Party purity."

With that taken care of, we move on to our second examination of the world of online "social networking."

I first posted a column about this when I initially joined Twitter, charmingly titled "On Being A Twit."

As you can see, back then, I simply was not in the spirit of the 140-character thing yet. Heh.

But now, a mere ten months later, I am approaching a Twitter milestone -- having 100 "followers."

Now, I never really liked the term "follower" much, because of its subservient nature, I have to admit.

Also, because it implies "leadership" at the other end of the equation, which isn't exactly how I would describe what I do.

Perhaps "snarksmanship" would be more accurate. If the word existed, that is. Heh.

Kidding aside, though, I am writing today to invite anyone who hasn't followed me yet to do so, because you may become my 100th follower!

You will win no prize for doing so, other than the warm feeling which comes from the knowledge that you'll never miss another posting here.

So I encourage anyone out there in (shudder, please forgive me for this, I beg of you) the "Twitterverse" to follow me today!

Over at Huffington Post, I am also approaching having 300 "fans" -- another milestone!

So I encourage HuffPost readers of my work, if they haven't already done so, to "fan" me today, as you may be my 300th official fan!

Which, again, will result solely in online bragging rights for you. Sorry about the lack of prizes, folks.

I apologize as well for such a self-serving column today on Twitter. I promise, it won't happen more than once a year.

We'll be back to the usual thing tomorrow, never fear.

I also apologize for breaking my own rule and using the word "Tweet" (twice now) in today's column.

Sorry, too, for keeping to my initial instinct, and not "following" anyone else, as I promised in last year's column.

Although I have been sorely tempted to follow Craig Ferguson (@CraigyFerg) at times, just for the heck of it.

Having said all of that, I will end today's column in the exact same annoying fashion as I started it:

Won't U B My 100th Follower? Pls?

 

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

21 Comments on “Won't U B My 100th Follower? Pls?”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's a tweet?? :D

    Michale.....

  2. [2] 
    fstanley wrote:

    I am LOL not because you are fishing for followers and fans but because I think you have broken some record for the number of times you say "sorry" in a post.

    ...Stan

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Stan -

    Let's just agree to call the whole thing a sorry episode and move on...

    :-)

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Stan,

    Chris Weigant is a closet Canadian. I kid you not! :)

  5. [5] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    OK, that was an annoying headline, I fully admit. It was annoying to type out, and I can only imagine how annoying it must be to read.

    That's an excellent headline, if you ask me. And I've written a whole lot of headlines in my day.

    Damn! I'm 101! Just missed it!

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Memo to everyone ...

    After our following duties are complete, then may I suggest that we take stock and make sure that our ChrisWeigant.com memberships are paid up in full.

    Support Enlightened Journalism!

  7. [7] 
    dsws wrote:

    No, I won't b ur 100th follower. I'm much too slow for that: I'm #102.

    Will u follow me back on huffpo plz?

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Chris1962 -

    I saw I hit 100, but the 100th was kind of questionable (looked kind of like a spam account) so I didn't congratulate them publicly. But if I DQ'ed them, then you are officially my 100th, so woo-effin'-hoo!

    :-)

    dsws -

    Hah!

    Certainly! I get confused with the whole badge/fan thing over on HuffPost -- I have a secret backstage user interface where I can answer comments without having to reload the page over and over again, so I don't often see comments the way readers do on HuffPost, but for you I will make the effort!

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Liz -

    Thanks for the plug! There's a "Donate" logo up top on the right, which takes PayPal or credit cards, I hasten to point out...

    :-)

    Oh, wait, if I'm Canadian, I should add "eh?" to the end of that, right? Heh.

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    But if I DQ'ed them, then you are officially my 100th, so woo-effin'-hoo!

    Hahahaha! How much is this gonna cost me.

    Meanwhile, where the heck do we talk about tonight's primary? I'd love to know your thoughts about Christine O'Donnell and the GOP's refusal to fund her campaign (very big mistake). Also, new Rasmussen poll out for Harry/Sharron. Etc.

  11. [11] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Chris1962 -

    Not a cent!

    Heh.

    I'm sure I'll probably talk about the Delaware upset later today/tomorrow/Wednesday, so rest assured. The Rasmussen thing, you're going to have to give me a link, though.

    Here is what I've been thinking about writing, but may be too timid (don't want to offend folks) to put in tomorrow's column:

    "Can anyone name me three facts about Delaware? I mean, seriously? Actually, although 99.95% of Americans probably can't answer that, I can:

    (1) Delaware was the "first state" because they ratified the Constitution first. They are inordinately proud of this, and have been bragging about it on their license plates for decades, now.

    (2) Delaware is the second-smallest state, only "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" is smaller (although it clocks in on the trivia scale as being the smallest state with the longest official name of all 50).

    (3) Delaware is also the second-most in the category of highest points in the state, with Ebright Azimuth being just slightly higher (a full 106 feet) than Britton Hill in Florida. Florida is basically flat as a pancake.

    Also, Rehoboth Beach is an excellent place to visit sun, sea, and sand, without the overwhelming commercialism of Ocean City, Maryland. I guess that's four facts, and that's without even bringing Dow Chemicals into the conversation."

    Like I said, perhaps a bit snarky. Small-state folks often have a lot of pride, and I don't want to needlessly provoke that sort of thing, so I'll probably be more considerate tomorrow.

    Heh.

    -CW

  12. [12] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    dsws -

    OK, I'm having a hard time finding a comment from you that I can fan. Post a recent comment to any of my recent columns, and I promise you I'll return the favor! It'll save me from doing a lot of searching...

    :-)

    -CW

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    "Can anyone name me three facts about Delaware? I mean, seriously?

    Without Google'ing and without reading any further....

    Delaware was the first state of the Union.

    Delaware is part of the United States.

    Delaware is a smaller state than Texas.

    You didn't say the facts couldn't be inane... :D

    (3) Delaware is also the second-most in the category of highest points in the state, with Ebright Azimuth being just slightly higher (a full 106 feet) than Britton Hill in Florida. Florida is basically flat as a pancake.

    Funny you should mention this.

    When we moved to Florida, we drove out here from WA State.. We were tooling around I-10 and hit the Florida border. We were in state for an hour and something really began to bother me. Something I couldn't quite put my finger on, something very deep and very visceral was telling me that something was very very wrong..

    Then it occurred to me. There are no mountains if Florida. Having been raised in Southern California and lived in the Pacific Northwest for most of my adult life, I have always been surrounded by mountains. No matter where I was, I could always see mountains in the distance...

    I had to overcome a slight case of agoraphobia when we moved here.. :D

    But I digress... :D

    Michale....

  14. [14] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Delaware = Maryland (near) ?

    This is probably the most Delaware's been in the news since ... ummm ... well .... since it was last in the news.

    I'm just wondering how come I haven't seen Anne McLane Kuster's win in the news at all.

    Where's the "liberal" news? :)

    -David

  15. [15] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Like I said, perhaps a bit snarky. Small-state folks often have a lot of pride, and I don't want to needlessly provoke that sort of thing, so I'll probably be more considerate tomorrow.

    It's good-snarky, though. Fun snarky. And informative. What's with you Lefties, always looking out for people's feelings. Kick some butt. Have some fun. Toughen these sensitive Dems up. 'D

    The Harry/Sharron/Rasumssen polling cracks me up. First they were 47/47, then they were 45/45, and now they're 48/48. Hahahaha. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/nevada/election_2010_nevada_senate

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is it just me or is O'Donnel really hot??? :D

    Michale.....

  17. [17] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I'm hearing pundits describe her as the East-coast Sarah Palin. She's really cute and likable, and everybody loves an underdog. And I think the GOP has been waaaay premature in assuming that she can't/won't win. It was really stupid to come out and say that, I think. She DID surprise folks in the primary, big time, after all. I sure wouldn't count her out just yet.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    The way I hear it, the GOP is falling over themselves to make up for that.. :D

    Be nice to get a lot of the old farts out of office and put in some new blood....

    Michale....

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Where's the "liberal" news? :)

    Didn't you get the memo???

    'Liberal' is a bad word again... :D

    Michale.....

  20. [20] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    dsws -

    OK, I think I fanned you, but I'm not sure it worked (my browser is twitchy on HuffPost comments section). Let me know if I should try again...

    -CW

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    (my browser is twitchy on HuffPost comments section).

    Michale mutters somethign about "stone knives and bear skins" :D

    hehehehehehehe

    Michale.....

Comments for this article are closed.