By Travis Walters
Day nine into summer break, I wanted to go back. I don’t cope well with nothing to do. I have a job and go out with friends, but I’m still left with an egregious amount of free time. I wound up reading a lot. A lot. I needed variety, however, and that’s when I turned to the Internet—the World Wide Web, the “series of tubes” as recently indicted Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens called it. Is there nothing it cannot provide? Digg, reddit, del.icio.us, Fox News: all sites dedicated to random segments of the bizarre and frightening aspects of our world, all proffered by the most bizarre and frightening among us.
Is there anything funnier than a cat caught in an exasperated pose with any sort of four to six letter word that ends with the letter Z? I think not. You’re welcome to try to find something, perhaps George W. Bush singing “Sunday Bloody Sunday,” but that’s about it. One could say that the commentary offered by the users of these sites is funny. I don’t think so. I think it’s downright frightening; their theories and ideas on life are the subject of another time however. I shall instead focus on rudimentary grammar.
The word “to” does not mean the same thing as “too,” in case you were unaware, and “alot” is not a word at all. “To” expresses motion, or identifies something. “I’m walking to York Hall,” or “Give that to her.” “Too” means excessively or also. “That shirt was too small,” or “I’ll be attending, too.” If you ever need to express a large quantity of something, use the two words “a” and “lot,” “a lot.” Chant it to yourself slowly. A. Lot. A. Lot. A lot. Light some candles while you do this; let the soothing monosyllable goodness wash over you. I never corrected the people on these sites. You mustn’t quarrel with them, for the massive resource of free time they have will ensepulcher all joy and happiness you have in the dank tubes connecting their computer with yours. You would become a “Grammar Nazi,” and as soon as they sense one, they all become Simon Wiesenthal. There is no refuge. You have been warned.
For a true showing of the grammar nightmare that covers the Internet like a deep-rooted mold, one need look no further than the “social network” sites. MySpace, Facebook and Twitter are the three that spring to my mind. I find Twitter the most bizarre. On their homepage they display quotes that I assume are there to promote its worthiness. “Twitter is the telegraph system of Web 2.0,” boasts one of the quotes. (Web 2.0 is the buzzword used to describe Web sites designed around the collaboration of its users; social networking, wikis and blogs are among those sites.) I wouldn’t think that a telegraph system is something you’d want to be compared to. It’s so outdated that any machinery associated with it is now in museums.
Beyond that, Twitter’s only “purpose” in life is telling others what you’re doing right now—all the time. Constant updates. Who needs that kind of information? What self-loathing person draws comfort from knowing the exact whereabouts and condition of everyone they know? Not that they know half the people they’re watching. Most likely they met one another while sitting pants-less in front of their computer, waiting for status updates and chatting to pass the time. And do you really want to update pants-less people on your condition?
Why would you need to know your friend is eating soup? I can’t see how that’s relevant on any level. Unless, let’s say, your friend Vincent is eating tomato soup and updating his Twitter status while you’re reading about a salmonella outbreak. You see Vincent is on his ninth bite, because he’s diligently updating his status each time the spoon leaves the bowl. You call Vincent to say, “Vincent! Put down that spoon!” That’s the only way Twitter is relevant. Even then, if Vincent hadn’t been pointlessly telling you how may bites he’d taken he’d have been reading the news as well, and your call wouldn’t have been necessary.
