How to set up HootSuite so it uses Traditonal Retweets rather than Twitter's pseudo-retweets

Hootsuite recently updated its software to try and trick people into using Twitter's fake retweets instead of real retweets.

Now I'm not a fan of Hootsuite, and wasn't even before this dirty trick, but for those of you gluttons for punishment who insist on continuing to use Hootsuite, here's how to set it up to reject the dirty trick:

1. Click on the stupid owl in the upper left hand part of your screen.

2. Go to Settings>Preferences

3. Unclick "Use Twitter Web retweets"

4. Save preferences.

You'll then be doing regular, genuine, traditional retweets.

(Here's a shortened URL for this post: http://is.gd/iCKFe)

How to set up Twittelator to do traditional retweets

In settings>retweets you'll be given 3 "retweet options":

Editable
Auto
Ask

Select "Editable" & save & you're all set.

(Shortened URL for this post: http://is.gd/iCKhB)

Advice: if you add a bunch of new people through Mr. Tweet, don't tweet about it

When someone follows me, and I have to decide whether to refollow them, the first thing I look at is their avatar and bio, primarily for the purpose of eliminating people. I will almost never follow someone based on their avatar and bio; I will only eliminate them from consideration based on those.

The second thing I look at, and the key to whether or not I will follow back, is the person's tweet stream, because that and that alone can inform me as to what kind of experience it will be to follow that person.

If the stream consists of page after page of tweets which say "@username I just followed you using @X 's chats with you through @MrTweet" .... I am not going to follow you back, because I will have received no information at all as to what kind of tweeter you are, other than that you are insensitive to the problem of generating spam.

So either, you should...

1. Only add a few people at a time using Mr. Tweet, or

2. Resist the temptation to tweet about it.

(Shortened URL for this post: http://is.gd/cNMGE)

Is it just me, or is it annoying when tweeps........

1. comment on tweets of yours without retweeting or even referencing the underlying tweet?

2. copy you on tweets for no apparent reason?

3. ask you to tweet stuff for them, even if they they've never done that for you, and even though it's not the kind of thing you normally tweet about?

4. tweet you just to start an argument with you?

I can't stand any of that. Here's the way I look at it:

Sending a comment, without retweeting the actual tweet upon which you are commenting, is IMHO an annoying practice. If you like it, retweet it. If you want to comment, add your comment to the retweet, but DON'T omit to retweet at least some of the underlying tweet. If you have a comment that's too long to add to the retweet, retweet first, and then comment.

If you reference me in a tweet it is going to take up space in my "mentions" stream, and I'm going to have to read it.... so make sure you have a reason for mentioning my name. If you're going to repeatedly comment on my tweets without retweeting them, I consider that a form of spam.

Today I got several tweets from someone apparently commenting on tweets of mine, but giving me no clue as to what they were referring to.

And I got several tweets in which someone else used my name to imply I'd tweeted something which I've never said, and never would say.

I am going to start blocking people who continue doing stuff like this.

Seems that @Twitter has finally reverted. Safe to use RT again.

Several days ago, on approximately May 18th, Twitter made a change to its searches. It began excluding from the search results of any searches initiated (a) by hashtag, or (b) from the homepage search box, any tweets which began with "RT" or which included "RT" anywhere in the body of the tweet.

Many of us complained, and even started a petition.

Several days later it indicated that it was dropping the filter.

The problem disappeared immediately, but then quickly resurfaced and has persisted for several days.

I tested today, however, and the system finally seems to have reverted to the way it was before, which is that traditional retweets containing the term "RT" are now no longer being shunned.

(Here is a shortened url for this post: http://is.gd/cm246)

Uh oh. @Twitter search continues to filter out retweets! #TR

I've re-tested it, and Twitter has not stopped its pernicious new practice of filtering the RT's out of searches from (a) hashtags and (b) homepage searchbox.

Better go back to using "TR" or "R" or "V" or "Via" etc, until we know what's going on. #TR

My initial report on the subject: "Has @Twitter Declared War on Traditional Retweets?" #TR

Twitter's false statement that it was stopping the practice: "Twitter removes the "RT" filter! #TR"

(Shortened URL for this post: )

Twitter removes the "RT" filter! #TR

Thank you to @low78 for bringing this article from Brad McCarty (@BradTNW) of The Next Web to my attention:

Twitter responds to missing RT’s saga.

Posted by Brad McCarty

We’ve been watching this episode since yesterday. Some Twitter users were noticing that anything with RT in it wasn’t being seen in certain search functions. The community as a whole went into an uproar.

It seems that Twitter heard that message loud and clear......

Complete article

(Here's a shortened URL for this blog post: http://twurl.nl/bc7l7p )

Petition against @twitter 's filtering traditional retweets out of searches #TR

If you're opposed to Twitter's new tactic of filtering traditional retweets which contain the term "RT" out of

1. hashtag searches, and

2. searches in homepage search box

here's a petition you can sign to demand that Twitter stop:

http://twitition.com/2sri3

(Here's a shortened URL for this post: http://is.gd/cgk7I)

Well, @Twitter is filtering "RT's" out of hashtag searches.This won't work I believe--> #TR

As it turns out Twitter's ban of traditional retweets, and of tweets carrying an "RT" designation extends not only to homepage search box searches, but also to hashtag searches, making hashtag searches much less valuable, and in some cases next to worthless.

Has @Twitter Declared War on Traditional Retweets? #TR

Update 5/20/10 5:06 pm. I just tested it and Twitter has gone right back to what it was doing before.

IMPORTANT UPDATE: On 5/20/10 I discovered that Twitter heard our voices, and removed the "RT" filter from searches. So we are back to normal.

*********
(Thanks to my friends @lissnup and @dominiquerdr for bringing this issue to my attention:)

We have previously discussed the problem with Twitter's "retweet" button, which has almost none of the properties of the traditional retweet ("Twitter tip: don't use Twitter's pseudo "retweet" button"), and discussed why it is preferable to use the traditional retweet (i.e. those usually signified by beginning them with "RT @Username").

It now appears that Twitter has silently begun a war against traditional retweets, with the first step being to filter them out of search.*

ANY TWEET WHICH HAS AN "RT" ANYWHERE IN THE BODY OF THE TWEET WILL BE FILTERED OUT OF

(a) SEARCHES INITIATED THROUGH THE SEARCH BOX ON THE HOME PAGE, AND
(b) SEARCHES INITIATED BY CLICKING ON A HASHTAG

I find this pathetic, and outrageous.

Twitter going to war with its own users.

And doing it in a sneaky, silent, back-door way.

If you use "R" instead of "RT" it will show up okay. So do that, or use some way other than starting your tweet with "RT", to signify your traditional retweet, such as "TR" for "traditional retweet", or "V" for "via". But whatever you do, don't use the term "RT", and edit the "RT"'s which may appear in the body of the tweet. (If you're tweeting about Iran, you should use "V" because the term "TR" is widely in use already, to denote "translated" tweets).

I'm going to use "TR".... to signify that I'm doing a traditional retweet despite their attempt to stamp it out.

And don't forget: if you're retweeting something that already has an "RT" anywhere in its body, you're going to have to edit the "RT"'s, changing them to "R" or "V" or "TR" or anything other than RT.

What a lame organization Twitter is.

*At the moment they appear to be filtered out of (a) homepage search box searches and (b) hashtag searches, but not out of searches through http://search.twitter.com. I ran a test of the same search, at the same time, by the home page method and the search.twitter.com method: Here's how they came out.

Update 5/18/10 10:19 PM. @Charles of Twitter was asked this question by @Twitter_Tips:
Quick question about changes to Twitter search. Are they intentional, temporary or...? Example: http://j.mp/ceDRbe
and gave this answer:
The results in integrated search simply include 'exclude:retweets' automatically. Search.twitter does not do this.
Most significantly Charles was not asked "when was this implemented?" or "why was this implemented?".
I have asked Charles those questions. I can't wait until I get his response. I doubt very much I will get a response.

Update 5/19 1:01 PM. If you're opposed to what Twitter has done and would like to sign a petition against it: http://twitition.com/2sri3

Update 5/19 3:21 PM. I received these responses so far from Charles:

RTs are usually a lot of noise in search results. Excluding them makes the results cleaner and (in most cases) better. http://twitter.com/Charles/status/14310576955
We are constantly improving our algorithms and search quality. We will definitely take your concerns to heart for the future.http://twitter.com/Charles/status/14310649295

I've given him my list of five questions:

Dear @Charles I have 5 questions about Twitter's filtering out traditional retweets from search #TR http://bit.ly/b4QNke http://twitter.com/RayBeckerman/status/14311463285
1. When was this implemented?
2. Why was it implemented?
3. Why were the customers not consulted?
4. Is this the end, or just the beginning, of trying to distinguish traditional retweets from tweets?
5. Why was it not announced?

I'll let you know if the questions are ever answered.

Commentary & discussion:

The Next Web
networkers-in-the-city.com (French)
Shoq Value
OWNI (French)
Search Engine Land
webketing.fr


(Here is a short URL to this post: http://is.gd/ceSKJ)

How to configure UberTwitter for traditional retweets

If you use UberTwitter on your Blackberry, it's easy to configure it so that it will always do the traditional retweets:

Go to "Options", "How to Retweet", and select "Original".

Save. And you're all set.

What is twitter spam? My little survey.

I'm not sure I have an answer to this, and I'm wondering what other people feel.

To me it seems that the following are "spammy" conduct on Twitter:

1. "Following" people not because you are interested in them, but because you are trying to increase your number of "followers".

2. Addressing unsolicited tweets to people you don't know because you want them to retweet something or to visit some site.

3. Sending unsolicited DM's to people you don't know because you want them to retweet something, or to visit some site.

I would appreciate your opinions as to whether you agree with the above, or whether there are other things you would consider spam.

(A short URL for this post: http://is.gd/bh6Iy )

My newest advice to Twitter newbies: disregard Twitter's home page

Twitter's new home page suggests that people new to Twitter start off by following a bunch of "celebrities" and "businesses".

This is the exact opposite of what a person new to Twitter should be doing in order to have a meaningful experience.

Hysterically, Twitter has set up a collection of "top tweeps" which are non-interactive accounts, some of which hardly tweet at all... and a "top tweets" account which purports to assemble, algorithmically, a feed of the "most interesting" tweets, and which does in fact assemble a mindless stream of boring drivel.

The whole idea is ludicrous. If you and I don't know each other, and I were to say to you here is a list of the "top tweets" why on earth would you believe me? How do you know what I like is what you would like? Answer: you don't. So why would you believe an "algorithm"? And the whole idea of just reading a feed, with tweets directed to no one, is mind numbing.

And if I were to tell you I had a list of the accounts which are the "top tweeps", and I had a financial interest in pimping them, why on earth would you accept my recommendations? Answer: you wouldn't.

It seems as though Twitter's "algorithm" has been set to "sleep inducing" mode (since the people who make these decisions appear to be asleep at the wheel, it's an understandable error).

What is awesome about Twitter's lists of "top tweeps" and "top tweets" is that Twitter seems to have assembled, with the help of its "algorithm", an almost perfect collection of total stiffs, and of meaningless babble, well crafted to prove the argument of Twitter's detractors that Twitter is a useless exercise. I could not have formulated lists better calculated to discourage people from using Twitter were I trying to do so.

Another piece of foolishness is Twitter's home page's reference to "trending topics". Why should you -- the Twitter user -- care about what is "trending"? You are an individual; you have your own interests; what matters is what's of interest to you, not what's of interest to the masses. Are you a human or a lemming? If a lemming, and you run to the trending topics, you'll probably just wind up in a sea of spam. (I've been told that if you click into the trending topics, you're likely to run into a sea of spam; I've never done it and probably never will, so I can't speak from personal experience.)

My advice is to (1) ignore everything Twitter says about itself, (2) take advice only from people who are already having enjoyable and meaningful Twitter experiences, and (3) take the advice previously outlined in my article : "A little basic advice for new or inactive peeps", on how to have a meaningful Twitter experience.

It appears more and more that Twitter is just interested in serving us up on a silver platter as a meal for its paying customers. Along with its implementation of targeted "lists", persistent refusal to implement the user-created retweet, its attempt to replace the traditional retweets with standardized anti-conversation rubber stamp pseudo-retweets, the hyping of "suggested" accounts to follow who are paying - or likely to become paying - customers or sponsors of Twitter, and the announced advertising 'platforms' [injecting paid ads into our Twitter stream from accounts we don't follow + littering search results with paid ads], this new home page with its hype of celebrities and businesses seems to be but another step towards (a) commercializing, and ultimately (b) destroying, Twitter. See, e.g., its new "Twitter 101" which -- instead of teaching basics to people so that they can get more out of Twitter -- advises businesses on how to make money with Twitter by exploiting ... us.

Twitter is trying more and more to become like the 1990's era Web 1.0 ... or actually more like 1950's era network television, perhaps. The people who make decisions like this at Twitter ought to go "update" their "timeline". I guess they're too busy "following" the "top tweets" and "top tweeps" and the "Friends and industry peers you know. Celebrities you watch. Businesses you frequent. Find them all on Twitter."

Why not just launch an online version of People magazine? Or has that been done already?

(Short URL for this post: http://bit.ly/d2XgEW )
(Short URL for "A little basic advice....." post: http://bit.ly/dgDrho )

How to use new Tweetdeck to do TRADITIONAL retweets

The new edition of Tweetdeck -- Version 32.0 -- enables you to do traditional retweets.

There are two ways:

(a) making it a permanent setting, or

(b) choosing each time.

Since there is NEVER a time when you should use the new pseudo-retweet (See my prior aricle, "Advice: don't use Twitter's so called "retweet"!", short URL=http://is.gd/4YRfB), I strongly recommend that you choose traditional retweets as your permanent setting.

HOW TO MAKE TRADITIONAL RETWEETS YOUR PERMANENT SETTING:

1. Go to "Settings" "Twitter".

2. Set first line to read "Retweet button should Edit before sending (Old style Retweet)"

3. Save.

(PS There's another way to do the above. The first time you're prompted to choose between the 2 kinds of RT's, click "Remember my choice" before selecting old style Retweet. In future, you won't be prompted; Tweetdeck will assume you're doing traditional RT's)

IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO IT ON A TWEET-BY-TWEET BASIS

1. In "Settings" "Twitter" first line should read: "Retweet button should Always ask me"

2. Each time you want to retweet something, click retweet.

3. You will be given a choice between "Retweet Now" and "Edit then Retweet". Even if you do not plan to edit or comment, choose "Edit then Retweet" Your retweet will be a traditional retweet. [If you choose "Retweet Now" you will wind up in Twitter's "black hole" created by its fake retweet button. ]

I think it is a bit misleading to use the term "Edit then Retweet", since it implies that you should use that button only if you are planning to edit. But I'm glad Tweetdeck 32.0 supports traditional retweeting.

Thank you, Tweetdeck.

[Update 3/12/10 2:35 PM: For those of you using Seesmic Desktop as your interface, the way to do traditional retweets is to click on the "more" button instead of the fake "retweet" button, and select "quote". It's a pain, but at least there's a way to do it. -R.B.]

(Short URL for this article: http://is.gd/58afM )

Advice: don't use Twitter's so called "retweet"! #TR

My advice to all Twitter users is that you should not use what Twitter calls a "retweet".

Just pass it on by.

The true retweet is something Twitter's customers invented, and which Twitter stupidly never formalized. The true "retweet" is the life blood of Twitter, and what has set it apart from other similar "microblogging" services. [See my blog post awesomeness of retweets : http://is.gd/4PFbJ ]

Here's how to do a true retweet it if you're accessing Twitter on the internet:

1. Copy and paste the message and name of person sending it to you.

2. Precede it by "RT @" [i.e. you type "RT", then a space, then a @. It's important that the @ and the name NOT have a space between them].



How true retweets work in Twitter "clients" -- i.e. applications.

If you're using Tweetdeck, Seesmic, or any of the myriad "clients" and applications which support Twitter and other microblogging platforms, they almost all provide "retweet" buttons which simply automate the above 2 steps.

If the makers of these programs are smart -- and they certainly appear to be -- they will preserve the true retweet function, even as they are forced to add Twitter's bastardized version.* Also they will quickly start supporting more and more other social media sites, in addition to Twitter (such as FriendFeed, StatusNet (identi.ca), LinkedIn, Facebook, MySpace, etc).

What's wrong with the thing Twitter mislabels a "retweet"

I don't have time to list all of the many things wrong with it; every day there are new, excellent articles coming out describing the stupidity of the product, and every day I learn of some new defective aspect of it.

My chief objections are:
(1) you can't insert a comment or start a conversation;
(2) you can't edit;
(3) instead of showing your avatar, it shows the avatar of the original tweeter, which might be someone the recipient doesn't know or have any relationship with;
(4) it prevents you from seeing multiple versions with different comments from different people;
(5) if someone retweets you, you will never know that they did, unless you go to the internet interface of Twitter, go to your home page, go to the Retweets column, and scroll through unsortable page after page of entries;
(6) if you retweet someone, they may never learn that you did, unless they go through the same process on their internet interface home page that you have to go through to find out if you've been retweeted;
(7) your so called "retweets" won't show up in Tweetdeck or any other Twitter "clients" or applications*;
(8) to the extent your identity is recognized at all in Tweetdeck, the recipient can't reply to you, or retweet you, or DM you, and may not even be able to verify your user name which appears in hazy type at the bottom of the tweet;
(9) it prevents conversation.

I.e., it takes the "social" out of "social media". It eliminates conversation and interaction, insists on blind rubber stamping, prevents you from letting your friend know you've honored them, and prevents you from knowing your friends have honored you. And it removes any clear indication of your identity to your own friends. Idiocy.

One of the primary uses of the traditional retweet is not as a simple "retweet" at all, but to start or continue a conversation, with 2, 3, sometimes even 4 or 5 people participating in a single tweet. Twitter management -- consorting as it does with the moneyed interests and "social media experts" who never get to enjoy such conversations -- appear to be oblivious to their very existence. Here are a couple of examples from some wonderful conversationalists who use "retweets" as conversation:

http://twitter.com/amazingflora/status/12620627869
http://twitter.com/tashamiel/status/12650036800
http://twitter.com/mireyamayor/status/12651573387
http://twitter.com/SherriACP/statuses/12649436005
http://twitter.com/NiniBaseema/statuses/12575093633

Can't you tell that the people who engage in such conversations are having the most fun of all on Twitter? They are absolutely the coolest communicators here.

Twitter's management doesn't get it. They're too important for that. They think a retweet is for the purpose of repeating some genius's isolated statement spoken in a vacuum to a vacuum, to be broadcast into an abyss.

People who tweet without these lively conversations are, to me, the saddest thing on Twitter. Twitter's pseudo retweet discourages -- actually makes impossible -- such interaction.

Why did Twitter do this?

I'm guessing it had to do with helping the "paying" customers -- celebrities, social media professionals, corporations, major news media -- who never retweet anyone, but are frequently retweeted by others. Their visibility will be enhanced, and Twitter's ability to sell us to them as "faces" and "impressions" will be enhanced. Meanwhile our interactivity with our friends is shattered, and our visibility to our friends is removed.

Even the "paying" customers -- for whose benefit this was done -- are being screwed. The Twitter they're paying for isn't the one they bought into.

What about other microblogging sites?

Since Twitter has basically given up its competitive edge by ruining the retweet, I recommend exploring the many other microblogging services, such as StatusNet (identi.ca), friendfeed, etc. I personally am looking closely at friendfeed and StatusNet (identi.ca) at the moment.

Right now we can probably do what I mentioned for the internet interfaces in most of those microblogging services as well. [E.g. FriendFeed has a "share" function. If you click that, it copies and pastes the post. Then at the beginning put in "RT @username", and you'll have a traditional retweet. Now if FF is smart they'll add a button which inserts "RT @username" automatically, and then you'll have a 1-step retweet like Tweetdeck, & most other applications, provide.]

Most likely some of those services will be smart enough to recognize Twitter's huge misstep, and will quickly implement formal "retweets" of their own, retweets which will embody the attributes of the true retweet rather than Twitter's joke version. [Note: Twitter, like all companies which are poorly managed and then try to make up for their business mistakes by resort to litigation, will no doubt try to force their competitors to use terms other than "retweet", probably claiming some trademark although Twitter itself has never even used the term until now. So just be on the lookout for the other microblogging services to use some alternative terminology for it.]

Also the desktop applications makers will no doubt be supporting more of the other microblogging services as well, and will be adding retweet buttons for all of them.

Conclusion

This is my advice:

1. Don't use Twitter's so called retweet function.... ever. (Unless you want to disappear into a black hole, in which case it would be easier to just stop "microblogging" altogether).

2. Use genuine retweets only.

3. Explore other microblogging services, and do traditional retweeting in them. If those sites or applications develop traditional retweet capabilities, then use them.

4. Use the hashtag #saveretweets when tweeting about this subject, and let Twitter management know that they should have spoken to their customers before ruining something.... just so they'll have a better understanding of how things work in the business world when they report for their next jobs, after Twitter has gone out of business.

* Update 2:07 PM ET, 12/26/09. In Tweetdeck vers. 32.*, the "new retweets" do show up in stream with 2 half sized avatars, 1 of the original tweeter, 1 of the last retweeter, and in latest verions have RT'g person's name in small hazy type at bottom of tweet. The avatar of the last retweeter and the name are for show only, however. You can't do anything with them other than squint at them. If you click them, you get no information about the retweeter, and you can't use them for RT'g, replying, DM'g, adding to a list, or anything else.

More importantly, Tweetdeck vers. 32.* has made it easy for you to configure it so that your retweets will by default be traditional, real retweets.

* Update 9:11 AM ET, 2/5/10. The recent Shorty Awards voting demonstrates the problem. Apparently votes lodged by the "fake retweet" button weren't counted, since the tweet had no identity -- URL -- of its own.

*Update 5:18 PM ET, 3/12/10. Seesmic desktop's "retweets" are the bad kind. But you can do a traditional retweet by going through a few extra clicks: click "more" then click "quote" and you'll be able to do a traditional retweet. Unlike Tweetdeck, Seesmic is not yet offering a means of configuring it to default to traditional -- rather than bastardized -- retweets, so you'll have to go through this exercise each time.

Update 9:43 PM ET, 4/7/10. One of Twitter's most successful accounts, shitmydaysays, just joinedr StatusNet (identi.ca)



(Short URL for this post: http://is.gd/4YRfB )

Help wanted: 13,000th Follower

Salary: none

Benefit: Opportunity to make nice new friends from all over the world

Generosity of spirit is required.

Intelligence and humor are preferred, since I am weak in both of those departments, but are not essential.

No right-wingers, bullies, corporatists, dictators, arguers, or other meanies need apply.

(Short URL to this post: http://is.gd/4UWmF )

How to make a twitter list

Take all the people you know on Twitter.

Divide them up into those you like and those you don't really care about.

Take the ones you like, and then divide them up into categories and characteristics.

Then put each into a pigeonhole.

Then take all those in a particular pigeonhole, and make them into a list.

This will take a lot of time, and will reduce each person you know into a handy set of characteristics instead of a human being.

(You may wonder why this is valuable. If so, that's because you're not in the marketing or advertising industry. If that's the case... off you go, into my "Non-advertising & Non-marketing" list.)

(Short URL to this post: http://is.gd/4PLoY)

My invaluable advice to marketers about Twitter lists

Marketers are intensely interested in #twitterlists; so I will give them my valuable guidance on the subject.

Coolest list to be on: http://twitter.com/Shelley_Rae/my-bitches

Least cool list to be on: http://twitter.com/badwebsites/owememoney

List of least value to marketers: http://twitter.com/Guajataka/raybeckerman

List with highest percentage of losers: http://twitter.com/catawu/asshats

You may see a lot of other "important" articles giving you "lists" of ways to make money from Twitter lists, telling you which lists are the "cool" ones, and other similar advice. Just ignore them. What do they know?

No need to thank me. Don't even mention it. I love sharing my legendary knowledge of how to make money.

[Update 11/9/09 12:51 PM BREAKING: I just discovered an important new list which is at least tied with @Shelley_Rae 's "My Bitches" list in coolness.... @DeliaChristina 's all important "Dudes Who Don't Annoy Me" list. This list includes not only myself, but also our distinguished President @BarackObama. Since it is quite rare to find someone whom I do not annoy, and since this list includes me, I will have to consider it the coolest Twitter list, that is unless and until I become an honorary member of the "My Bitches" list. ~R.B.]

(Short URL to this post: http://is.gd/4Melu )

Who is the "guru" of Twitter? for me it's @BuzzEdition

Admittedly there is no such thing as a single guru of Twitter; there are lots of people with lots of different ways of doing things.

But if I were looking for a "guru", I'd bypass anyone who calls him or her self a "guru" or maven or expert, or anything like that.

Especially is this so in the world of "social media", where nobody really knows what they're doing, it's all moving so fast. Twitter always has been, and still is, about 12 steps behind its customers.

If I were looking for a "guru", I would look among the modest, the humble, the self-deprecating folks, who would never call themselves a guru, and who recognize the enormity of it all, and their own limitations as human beings, and who quietly go about doing their thing in their way.

There I would find the person I consider the true "guru" of Twitter.... Susan Elaine, @BuzzEdition.

(She will probably kill me for having written this, but what the heck. I like to live dangerously.)

Susan teaches by example that what Twitter is about is the same thing life is about: caring about other people.

We've all seen Twitter users who prattle on, and are all about themselves. Those people just don't get out of the Twitter experience what it truly has to offer.

I don't know much about Susan's personal life, but I know from being her friend on Twitter that she has a real powerful maternal instinct: she just cares about other people.

Twitter for me is about treasuring and cherishing and enjoying what is special in others, and sharing the treasures with your other friends.

On Twitter as in life, as you sow, so shall you reap; as you give, so shall you receive.

No one on Twitter better exemplifies that than Susan.

That is why she has so many friends here, who would do anything for her.

Thank you, Susan, for being my "guru".

(Short URL for this post: http://is.gd/5qgVg)

Bush probably would have lost 2004 election if we'd had Twitter then

We have recently been joined on Twitter by my wonderful friend Susan Truitt -- @Susan_Truitt -- from Ohio.

Susan was one of the great leaders of the resistance to the Ohio 2004 election fraud. I first met her in person on January 6, 2005, the day on which Congress met in joint session to debate the seating of the sham Ohio electors, a day which also represented the culmination of the historic Freedom Winter Bus Ride from Columbus, OH, to Washington, DC (See music video "Get Up on the Bus" by hip hop artist Wil B, who I believe coined the phrase "the political power of hip hop").

Susan's being here inspires me to imagine how Twitter would have changed things, had it been in existence on election day 2004.

During the 2004 presidential election hundreds of thousands of Ohioans, mostly black people, college students, and people who lived in poorer areas, were disenfranchised, by a panoply of vile tactics too numerous to itemize here. (My blog Ohio Election Fraud enumerates many of them, and provides links to books and dvd's for further study.)

The then Secretary of State of Ohio, Republican Kenneth Blackwell, whose sworn duty it was to uphold the integrity of the elections, was also the head of the Bush reelection efforts, and did everything he could to dishonor his oath of office in order to get Bush reelected.

In the months leading up to the election he engaged in numerous shenanigans, such as rejecting voter registrations not printed on a certain thickness of paper, illegally removing people from the voter rolls, refusing to respond to requests for polling place information from voters, refusing to confirm registrations, wholesale changing of polling place locations without lawful notice to the voters, and deliberate stockpiling of voting machines to ensure that poor areas, black areas, and college and university areas would be grossly underserved for processing of the inordinately complex ballot he and his cronies had cooked up that year. He had likewise "overlooked" things like distribution of leaflets giving incorrect polling place information, and gangs of Republican thugs planning to swoop down on the polling places in those same areas.

A large number of people, like attorney Susan Truitt, served on election day as poll watchers.

From the moment the polls opened, until long after they were supposed to have closed, innumerable horrors were visited upon the good people of Ohio.

Had these occurred in New York or Los Angeles there would have been rioting in the streets.

Because it happened in the sedate, understated, polite State of Ohio, such rioting did not occur.

And had the good people of New York or Los Angeles learned that the outcome of their presidential election had been determined by such fraud, there would have been rioting in the streets. That's where the "media" came in, to make sure that LA and New York and Detroit and Chicago and Philadelphia and places like that never found out.

The corporate media took it as their mission to ensure that word did NOT get out. And they deliberately falsely reported to the world that everything had gone smoothly in Ohio with a few "minor glitches" which the people of Ohio took "in good stride". As everyone who was in Ohio that day, or who read and watched local media in Ohio, knew, nothing could have been further from the truth.

The mainstream media "hatchetmen" reported fully on the election fraud which had happened in the Ukraine that year, but stealthily and concertedly maintained 'radio silence' about the even worse fraud that had occurred in the United States.

Although most people in Ohio were aware of the total sham the election had been there, the vast majority of people outside of Ohio have never had a clue.

If Susan, and others like her, had been armed with a smart phone and twitter, I submit.... the outcome would have been very different.

In Youngstown, Ohio, in Mahoning County, for example, the internet email joke of touch screen voting machines where a voter would press "Kerry" and wind up having voted "Bush", wound up coming true.

Starting at 6 AM, voters using touchscreen voting machines who attempted to vote for "Kerry" had their votes automatically switched to "Bush".

It was first reported at about 6:05 AM, and it continued to be reported throughout the day, until late at night. I.e. the machines that were doing this were never taken out of service or repaired, they were allowed to continue "fixing" the election all day long.

Had voters been equipped with flip videos or smart phones, they could have documented the touchscreen debauchery, as well as other violations.

Had poll watchers had a smart phone with twitter, and possibly flip videos or even ordinary digital cameras, they would have been able to take pictures and videotape interviews with the cheated voters, and could have immediately tweeted them. By 6:10 AM the entire world would have known what was happening in Ohio, and #Ohio would have been the trending topic on Twitter throughout the day.

It would have been politically impossible for Kerry to have conceded at 10 in the morning the day after the election, because the entire world would have known of the massive fraud.

I think citizen journalism has now arrived.

The days of the mainstream media suppressing the truth are ending.

And Twitter is one of the things we have to thank for that.

(Short URL for this post: http://is.gd/4PNE0)