Tony La Russa, manager of baseball team the St. Louis Cardinals, recently sued Twitter, claiming that an unauthorized page using his name damaged his reputation and caused emotional distress. It's true, anyone can sign onto Twitter and claim to be a celebrity but it can happen anywhere in the world of social media.
Media personality Keith Olbermann also was a victim of Twitter fraud - yes, someone out there said things so ridiculously partisan even Keith Olbermann was concerned about his portrayal and CNN recently acquired the rights to CNNbrk (CNN Breaking News), the largest Twitter account on record with 959,011 followers, 'owned' by James Cox, who doesn't even work for CNN.
Professor Susan Jacobson of Temple's School of Communications and Theater, says Twitter fraud is similar to what happened in the early days of the Internet when regular people would rush to buy domain names (i.e., www.madonna.com) and then sell them to celebrities for millions of dollars.
The Philadelphia Daily News recently published comments from Philadelphia Eagles cornerback Asante Samuel's Twitter feed, only to find that his words were being 'tweeted' by an imposter. Jacobson says Twitter is no shortcut to checking sources. "We are still in the early stages of social media. These situations are bound to continue to happen until laws are enacted that prevent people from misrepresenting themselves. If social media follows the same model as the web, we will continue to see misrepresentations of celebrities on social media sites."
A Twitter law? Few people outside academia would say it without laughing. If we think government is bloated and inefficient now, just wait until they start administering social media. There already is a law against impersonation - adding more laws instead of enforcing the ones that exist seems silly.
Frank Farley, a psychologist at Temple, says there might be some malicious intent to celebrity fraud but it is more likely a prank. "We shouldn't be surprised by this; I'm frankly surprised we haven't seen more of it. Through social media, we have created the capacity or opportunities for people to take such actions. It's the old 'If you build it they will come.'"
The quote that got Twitter sued, though they have no income and no plan on a way to make any (beyond, let's hope Google buys us before people figure it out) was this one by LaRussa's impersonator - "Lost 2 out of 3, but we made it out of Chicago without one drunk driving incident or dead pitcher."
Obviously being critical of a public person is different than misrepresentation, and pretending it was LaRussa making fun of himself for drunk driving or something as sensitive as a dead player was offsides.
Twitter wisely settled the lawsuit once it became public and took control of the offending account. This was a good move. A company with no revenue can't be engaged in high-profile lawsuits which burn through VC money and have investors asking how they intend to put in barriers that Twitter became popular for not having.
Comments
What kind of sentence is this?
yes, someone out there said things to ridiculously partisan even Keith
Olbermann was concerned about is portrayal and CNN recently acquired
the rights to CNNbrk (CNN Breaking News), the largest Twitter account
on record with 959,011 followers, 'owned' by James Cox, who doesn't
even work for CNN.
It's called natural English. You may have heard of it.
We do both kinds here: grammatical and logical.
yes, someone out there said things to ridiculously partisan
even Keith Olbermann was concerned about is portrayal
and
CNN recently acquired the rights to CNNbrk (CNN Breaking News),
the largest Twitter account on record with 959,011 followers,
'owned' by James Cox,
who doesn't even work for CNN.
Or, were you just nit-picking the typos - 'too' and 'his' ?
Patrick Lockerby | 06/06/09 | 20:25 PM
R. M. Turdstile (not verified) | 06/06/09 | 23:38 PM
Natural English is English that flows naturally from the formulation of utterances unimpeded by centuries-old uninformed pedagogery.
Op-Ed? What kind of English is that?
Thank you for playing!
Some effort should be expended to rewrite the run-on sentence. You may
have heard of those and I once wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times
you may have heard of that too.
Op-Ed? What kind of English is that?
Thank you for playing!
Patrick Lockerby | 06/10/09 | 03:33 AM
Op-Eds are the NY Times efforts at fairness. To offset their own political slant, they let outside people agree with them in opinion pieces. I agree with him that this isn't great writing but the NY Times is bleeding money and its circulation is dwindling while our readership goes up every month. At least in science, content counts for more than form.
Hank Campbell | 06/11/09 | 07:25 AM
Some effort should be expended to rewrite the run-on sentence. You may
have heard of those and I once wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times
you may have heard of that too.
A run-on sentence contains two or more independent clauses, i.e. complete sentences, which are joined with no punctuation or conjunction.
Yes, I agree. A comma or two, judiciously placed, can enhance readability no end:
You may have heard of those,
and I once wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times,
you may have heard of that too.
There. Commas neatly tucked in. That's so much better, isn't it?
At least in science, content counts for more than form.
Amen, again I say: amen!
Patrick Lockerby | 06/11/09 | 07:58 AM
JA
JamesAven (not verified) | 06/07/09 | 02:16 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 06/09/09 | 14:08 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 06/09/09 | 14:10 PM
She is Ashley. We don't need to bribe people. SB shirts are like gold in the science community. You can't tell in that pic but she is reading Kreyszig's 'Advanced Engineering Mathematics' there, which is another level of awesome.
Hank Campbell | 06/09/09 | 15:04 PM
Stephanie Pulford | 06/09/09 | 15:18 PM
Hank Campbell | 06/09/09 | 15:23 PM
"Natural English is English that flows naturally from the formulation of utterances unimpeded by centuries-old uninformed pedagogery." Most amusing. This loaded definition begs the question of forming utterences unimpeded by the desire to communicate in the English language as understood by the not-centuries-old competent speaker of English.
R. M. Turdstlle (not verified) | 06/14/09 | 19:36 PM
My own run-on sentence was deliberate.
We have only your word for that.
your run-on sentence was copied around the web
Not mine, I assure you. And do you realise just how few people know what a run-on sentence is, or even care?
"Natural English is English that flows naturally from the formulation of utterances unimpeded by centuries-old uninformed pedagogery." Most amusing. This loaded definition begs the question of forming utterences unimpeded by the desire to communicate in the English language as understood by the not-centuries-old competent speaker of English.
So, you think that a definition of 'natural English' as English naturally spoken without formal application of invented rules is 'loaded'? When Chaucer wrote the Canterbury Tales there were no English Grammar books. The nit-picking, dotwatching, pedantic 'grammar' that would be the death of new coinages and poetic turns of phrase was formulated by ill-informed self-appointed 'experts' long before linguistics became a science. Science has determined that the function of language is the adequate communication of ideas, not the demonstration of a 'perfect' syntax-based grammar based on a flawed understanding of Ciceronian Latin.
Your score so far is: nil point, zero, nada, nichts, nil nihil.
You may wish to give up while you are ahead.
Patrick Lockerby | 06/14/09 | 19:56 PM
Hank Campbell | 06/14/09 | 22:05 PM
The sloppy thinking that informed the run-on sentence was in evidence when you misunderstood what I meant by "loaded." The refence to usages "unimpeded by centuries-old uninformed pedagogery" could fairly be called loaded. Most linguists are aware of current usage. Having to dismiss several centuries worth of straw men to defend a poorly worded sentence is pretty desperate.
A more convincing argument would be to point to similarly bad examples in contemporary professional journalism. The refence to centuries-old Chaucer does nothing for the claim that only a backwards-looking fustian grammarian could find fault with your run-on sentence.
R. M. Turdstlle (not verified) | 06/15/09 | 07:28 AM
R. M. Turdstlle (not verified) | 06/15/09 | 07:33 AM
R. M. Turdstile:
I think that you would find fault with Michelanglo's choice of pigment and brushstrokes. I would love to see you go into a crowded bar and correct the truck-drivers' grammar for them.
The purpose of this site is to inform people about science, not to indulge dotwatchers, the sort of people who find a childish delight in attempting to impose their rigid notions of 'good English' on others, whilst completely ignoring the scientific merits, or lack thereof, in the original article.
You, R.M. Turdstile, continue to use the ambiguous term 'you' without clarifying whether you mean me personally, or the author of this article, or the owners of the website, or the bloggers here in general. You thus demonstrate that you do not understand the scientifically demonstrable foundation of language: the purpose of language is to communicate ideas with sufficient clarity and lack of ambiguity for the purpose at hand. Where the purpose is scientific debate, there is no requirement for a slavish following of any particular grammar-police diktat, merely a requirement of intelligibility.
Mutatis mutandis, you seem to be suggesting that the dismissal of several centuries worth of straw man argument is somehow reprehensible. I laugh. Your use of emotive terms such as 'travesty', 'obtuse', sloppy' serve only to alert the astute reader to your content's argumentum ad hominem. I deduce thereby that you are an agendist, that you are certainly not a scientist, that you have never studied linguistics or cognitive science, and that you have devoted overmuch time to the in-depth study of school grammar.
Natural English is not a dialect: it is the scientifically observed use of the spoken and written English in ordinary human affairs regardless of dialect. Go down any street in the US, Canada, Britain, Ireland, Australia, New
Zealand, India, China, in fact almost any country in the world and you
will find people who have never seen a grammar book communicating without effort by the spoken and written word using natural English. Which of those
variants of English do you suggest we have a right to impose on the world at large by decree? Shall we continue to impose by diktat a school grammar first formulated in England by Latinists who were eager to squeeze English into an alien Latin mould? Language study has moved on somewhat since the following words were written in 1920:
H.L. Mencken (1880–1956). The American Language.
I think that you would find fault with Michelanglo's choice of pigment and brushstrokes. I would love to see you go into a crowded bar and correct the truck-drivers' grammar for them.
The purpose of this site is to inform people about science, not to indulge dotwatchers, the sort of people who find a childish delight in attempting to impose their rigid notions of 'good English' on others, whilst completely ignoring the scientific merits, or lack thereof, in the original article.
You, R.M. Turdstile, continue to use the ambiguous term 'you' without clarifying whether you mean me personally, or the author of this article, or the owners of the website, or the bloggers here in general. You thus demonstrate that you do not understand the scientifically demonstrable foundation of language: the purpose of language is to communicate ideas with sufficient clarity and lack of ambiguity for the purpose at hand. Where the purpose is scientific debate, there is no requirement for a slavish following of any particular grammar-police diktat, merely a requirement of intelligibility.
Having to dismiss several centuries worth of straw men to defend a poorly worded sentence is pretty desperate.
Mutatis mutandis, you seem to be suggesting that the dismissal of several centuries worth of straw man argument is somehow reprehensible. I laugh. Your use of emotive terms such as 'travesty', 'obtuse', sloppy' serve only to alert the astute reader to your content's argumentum ad hominem. I deduce thereby that you are an agendist, that you are certainly not a scientist, that you have never studied linguistics or cognitive science, and that you have devoted overmuch time to the in-depth study of school grammar.
Are you willing to be helpful and supply a reference for the dialect of English that you term "natural English"?
Natural English is not a dialect: it is the scientifically observed use of the spoken and written English in ordinary human affairs regardless of dialect. Go down any street in the US, Canada, Britain, Ireland, Australia, New
Zealand, India, China, in fact almost any country in the world and you
will find people who have never seen a grammar book communicating without effort by the spoken and written word using natural English. Which of those
variants of English do you suggest we have a right to impose on the world at large by decree? Shall we continue to impose by diktat a school grammar first formulated in England by Latinists who were eager to squeeze English into an alien Latin mould? Language study has moved on somewhat since the following words were written in 1920:
... our professors of the language, in the overwhelming main, combat all signs of differentiation with the utmost diligence, and safeguard the doctrine that the standards of English are the only reputable standards of American.
This doctrine, of course, is not supported by the known laws of language, nor has it prevented the large divergences that we shall presently examine, but all the same it has worked steadily toward a highly artificial formalism, and as steadily against the investigation of the actual national speech. Such grammar, so-called, as is taught in our schools and colleges, is a grammar standing four-legged upon the theorizings and false inferences of English Latinists of a past generation, eager only to break the wild tongue of Shakespeare to a rule; and its frank aim is to create in us a high respect for a book language which few of us ever actually speak and not many of us even learn to write.
H.L. Mencken (1880–1956). The American Language.
Patrick Lockerby | 06/15/09 | 08:58 AM
Zadi (not verified) | 06/15/09 | 15:45 PM
"yes, someone out there said things so ridiculously partisan even Keith Olbermann was concerned about his portrayal and CNN recently acquired the rights to CNNbrk (CNN Breaking News), the largest Twitter account on record with 959,011 followers, 'owned' by James Cox, who doesn't even work for CNN."
Why is the clause "someone out there said things so ridiculously partisan even Keith Olbermann was concerned about his portrayal" juxtaposed with "CNN recently acquired the rights to CNNbrk (CNN Breaking News)." Was it that Keith Olbermann was concerned about being impersonated (as opposed to being "portrayed") or was it that the impersonation was "ridiculuously partisan"? What does CNNbrk have to do with the impersonation of Keith Olberman? What does the acquisition of CNNbrk by CNN have to do with the impersonation of Olbermann? I gather that CNNbrk was created by a person by the name of James Cox, who was not an employee of CNN. CNN subsequently acquired the CNNbrk account through some unspecified process. Is it necessary to include, in the same sentence, that the CNNbrk account has 959,011 followers? Is there some relation between the number of followers and the number of people who might have mistaken the impersonator for Olbermann? Was James Cox using the account he created to impersonate Keith Olbermann? Or was it "someone out there" as stated in the text?
Do people really talk like this, even informally? Who, besides yourself, or the author? What exactly would they be conveying? On the spectrum of intelligibility, this sentence is autistic. No concern for the reader. Perhaps that's not a consideration. Addressing the substandard grammar--based on a descriptive account of what passes for more or less formal English--would not address the less-than lapidary semantics. The professor quoted in this article was appalled by this breathless specimen. If you wish to defend its structure and meaning as an exemplar of natural English, and why it would be clear to any competent speaker of the language, by all means proceed. So far your remarks have been directed to pedants. (I suppose you detest editors.) It is time to consider the reader, for a change.
As for the scientific study of linguistics, I'm partial to combinatorial categorial grammar, and I have trained neural nets on a large corpus of parsed sentences, but that is not at issue.
Resident M. Turdstile
R. M. Turdstlle (not verified) | 06/15/09 | 20:59 PM
Granting the naturalistic linguistic free-for-all, it seems possible to make judgments about writing in a given context. Lockerby seemed poised to launch into an attack against Turdstile. Lockerby's "we do both kinds, grammatical and logical" is hardly a question asking for clarification of Turdstile's initial suggestion that the sentence was unintelligible. It seems to have been provocative.
Later, Lockerby proposes intelligibility as a criterion for judgment. Turdstile might even agree. I would tend to agree with Turdstile that the sentence does not inspire confidence that the writer knows what he is talking about. One need not refuse to consider "ungrammatical" sentences to find them more or less intelligible.
Xlp Thlplylp (not verified) | 06/16/09 | 17:15 PM
R. M. Turdstlle (sic) or Turdstile, or Xlp Thlplylp or whatever:
Do you wish to discuss the merits of the article itself?
If not, and you wish to discuss issues of language use, may I refer you first to an excellent beginner's guide to the topic:
http://www.indiana.edu/~hlw/Introduction/prescription.html
Do you wish to discuss the merits of the article itself?
If not, and you wish to discuss issues of language use, may I refer you first to an excellent beginner's guide to the topic:
http://www.indiana.edu/~hlw/Introduction/prescription.html
Patrick Lockerby | 06/16/09 | 18:05 PM
Xlp Thlplylp (not verified) | 06/16/09 | 19:07 PM
I had not come across crossmyt.com before, so thank you for the link.
I note the page on 'The House That jack Built' contains the Bombaugh 1890 parody.
My own preference is for the Coleridge parody, 1797.
http://etext.virginia.edu/stc/Coleridge/poems/House_Jack_Built.html
I note the page on 'The House That jack Built' contains the Bombaugh 1890 parody.
My own preference is for the Coleridge parody, 1797.
"And this reft house is that the which he built."
http://etext.virginia.edu/stc/Coleridge/poems/House_Jack_Built.html
Patrick Lockerby | 06/16/09 | 19:59 PM












yes, someone out there said things to ridiculously partisan even Keith Olbermann was concerned about is portrayal and CNN recently acquired the rights to CNNbrk (CNN Breaking News), the largest Twitter account on record with 959,011 followers, 'owned' by James Cox, who doesn't even work for CNN.