New York Times Bans The Word 'Tweet'

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sidebar Sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
IMO the evolution of language is inevitable and should not be resisted. That said, the purpose of language is to communicate and if using a word prevents some people from understanding, that word should be avoided. This also applies to “educated” words that are beyond the target audience’s reading level, despite the author’s urge to sound sophisticated
 
[citation][nom]wiseguy5280[/nom]Only word I associate with Twitter is Twit: a user of Twitter.[/citation]
LOLZ, OH THE ORIGINALITY!!! You are criticizing a user of one social medium (twitter) by means of another (Tom's comment section)... and you don't see any problem with that apparently. Who's the twit now?
 
Seeing as he's talking about the use of standard English, he's starting an awful lot of sentences with conjunctions such as 'and' or 'but'.
 
All the words in the dictionary are made up by someone; I don't see the problem with tweet or tweeted. Pop culture is bigger than the new york times.
 
[citation][nom]tethoma[/nom]The word Tweet will die, a good 1st step.[/citation]
[citation][nom]nonTwit[/nom]The only word I associate with Twitter is Twit: a user of Twitter.[/citation]

+1 & +1

As for joebob2000...well...good point...you still won't get through to any of them. 😉
 
Who cares, it's not a big deal. Just like every other website, within a couple years nobody will use it anymore because it's "uncool" and there's something new. Look at MySpace for example.
 
[citation][nom]joebob2000[/nom]LOLZ, OH THE ORIGINALITY!!! You are criticizing a user of one social medium (twitter) by means of another (Tom's comment section)... and you don't see any problem with that apparently. Who's the twit now?[/citation]

You are, still.
 
[citation][nom]maigo[/nom]people who read the newspaper don't have internet or comp-uters[/citation]
I'm not sure what kind of world you're living in, but it sure isn't mine.
 
[citation][nom]czar1020[/nom]I think the whole twitter thing is crap, facebook is falling in right behind along with all the other crap...Really who cares... Mabye im just anti social and don't care who/what your doing.[/citation]
Very true, the crap bit not the anti-social.
There's no real need to let your wonderful "followers" know that you're making toast. The first thing I do on websites that I often check on is adblock any instance of Failbooks "Like" buttons, twitter buttons, etc.
Can't wait for the day when they die altogether.
 
[citation][nom]czar1020[/nom]I think the whole twitter thing is crap, facebook is falling in right behind along with all the other crap...Really who cares... Mabye im just anti social and don't care who/what your doing.[/citation]

Thank you. This made my day. Finally someone agrees with me
 
If you're reading the New York Times NEWSPAPER you expect a standand language, not reading TWITTER. DUH

Finally something sensible out of the New Yuck Times
 
The BBC website seems to be particularly obessed with twitter and mentions it at every opportunity. I'm convinced their editor has shares in it...
 
The New York Times has had remarkable staying power in the face of year after year of losses, but unless they can return to the black, and I don't think that's going to happen, the bills will come due. They will probably start with Chapter 11 and stumble along for a few more years, but then they will go out of business.

Of course they could find a way to make a profit with this internet thing, but the question is which will come first, people stop using the word "twitter" and its variants, or the New York Times shuts down.

It will be interesting to see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom