Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Hill Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn.misc Subject: Re: The RISC OS News Network Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 14:24:51 +0100 Organization: timil.com Lines: 60 Message-ID: <51ff0a7ff0tim@invalid.org.uk> References: <51fc16d0d6dave@triffid.co.uk> <51fc4e13f4dave@triffid.co.uk> <51fd7f5aaealan.dawes@argonet.co.uk> <51fd970ceedave@triffid.co.uk> <4e3b355c$0$30758$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> <51fe1b1bb9dave@triffid.co.uk> <51feed6e1btim@invalid.org.uk> <51fef1d4besee.sig@walkingingermany.invalinge.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: GqAcIUbqh27oTTI3Dt5hJw.user.speranza.aioe.org X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Pluto/3.04c (RISC-OS/5.16) NewsHound/v1.50-32 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.sys.acorn.misc:1390 In article , Vince M Hudd wrote: > Tim Hill wrote: > > In article , Vince M > > Hudd wrote: > > > Tim Hill wrote: > > > > [of an annoyingly long URL posted previously] > > > > > Imagine posting it - unshortened - to Twitter!!!!! > > ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ > > !!! > > > With Twitter's 140 character limit, pasting it directly into a > > > tweet would leave you 121 characters for the remainder of your > > > message - because Twitter uses its own URL shortener automatically. > > Well, derr. > I inferred from your original comment, and its context, a suggestion > that it was necessary to shorten long links using services such as > tinyurl *before* inserting them into a tweet, in order to fit them in - > which it isn't, because Twitter deals with that for you. > Reading the original post again, it *still* looks as though that's what > you were suggesting. Funny then, given the way you snipped the original, that isn't the sense given by my [snipped] post (above). :-/ > My post merely corrects what appeared to be a misunderstanding on your > part - for good reason, given that some of the readership of this group > have made it perfectly clear in another thread that they don't really > understand Twitter and how it works. Please don't paint me with your 'only understands computing of the 1990s' brush, follow me instead: ;-) It's safe: I read much more than I write. > If you already knew about Twitter's automatic use of t.co, then I'm not > sure what the point was that you were making. Only that posting such a huge mush of a URL (if you could) or other junk of 130 chars won't leave you enough room even to say 'hello world'. It was a flippant remark, not meant to be hyper-analysed. I said that also knowing - as you do - that the likes of Twitter (and Facebook?) Link Shortening is as good as Secret Knowledge to anyone who can't (has RISC OS only) or won't (is resistant to change) keep up. But these are intelligent beings and often know about the 140 char limit because broadcast media (used to) mention it so often. -- Tim Hill of timil.com . . . * supports TFT & shares in cheaper ethical telecoms http://tjrh.eu/phone * has a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/ * accepts incoming email: substitute postmaster@ for tim@ ... "Honest plain words best pierce the ear of grief" Love's L L, Act v, Sc.2