Ö÷²¥´óÐã

« Previous | Main | Next »

Facebookers and ghostposters

Post categories:

William Crawley | 13:24 UK time, Tuesday, 24 July 2007

If you're on Facebook, you might like to join the "I Listen to the Ö÷²¥´óÐã's Sunday Sequence programme" group. Right now, Dáithí is trying to organise a tour of the programme and is even offering to make pins for everyone. I kid you not. Given his comments on Sunday morning's programme, I won't expect the media analyst Paul Moore to be signing up anytime soon. Can Paul really be right in his assertion that Bebo, MySpace and Facebook are already doomed as social networking venues?

On an unrelated matter, my old friend Paul Bailie has asked me to make it known that he is not the "PB" who often posts on Will & Testament. Apparently, people now come up to him on the street and say things like, "It's you, isn't it?" Someone previously suggested that "PB" was in fact President Bush. The White House confirms that this is not the case. (OK, it was "PB" who confirmed that.) The identity of Shiboleth, the hermeneutical stig who often posts here on contentious textual matters, also remains shrouded in mystery.

Comments

  • 1.
  • At 02:19 PM on 24 Jul 2007,
  • Rick Hill wrote:

Social networking is here to stay. Second life, flickr,youtube, bebo, myspace, facebook, ning, all can't all be wrong!
The exponential growth of facebook may be a recent and unsustainable phenomenon, but our human desire for community, relationship, and creative outlets is finding new ways of forming networks.
Take the Belfast Flickr group, they meet up socially in the real world from time to time.
I think there is a tendency to move on to the next new thing online. Facebook will possibly displace, bebo and myspace.
Technology drives content and changes consumption by audiences. New content then remodels and redefines the technology.
It is almost like a symbiotic relationship.
Whats next?

  • 2.
  • At 02:57 PM on 24 Jul 2007,
  • helen j wrote:

will = how about organising a will and testament meetup!

  • 3.
  • At 04:48 PM on 24 Jul 2007,
  • wrote:

I've also been asked if I post here! Not guilty. :-)

  • 4.
  • At 05:30 PM on 24 Jul 2007,
  • wrote:

Well it's true that at some point the current social networking sites will eventually be superseded by sites based on better technology but the best of the current crop will adapt if not innovate and thus survive (Facebook at the top of that pile, imo).

I happen to know PB's real name and so didn't think it was Paul Bailie - however I DID suspect Paul Bailie as Shiboleth (I've been reliably informed that's not the case....).

  • 5.
  • At 05:34 PM on 24 Jul 2007,
  • Rick Hill wrote:

We might need a mediator! LOL

  • 6.
  • At 09:12 PM on 24 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:

LOL!

Yes I'd just like to let Paul Bailie off the hook, he is not I.

And Will is quite right, I am not GW Bush either; I am sure W is much brighter than I am!

PB

  • 7.
  • At 09:20 PM on 24 Jul 2007,
  • Christopher Woods wrote:

Above is a link to an article by Danny Finklestein on the 'dangers' of Facebook, much of which I agree with.

  • 8.
  • At 09:34 PM on 24 Jul 2007,
  • wrote:

Is Shiboleth Dr Helenann Hartley, and will PB come out.

  • 9.
  • At 10:40 PM on 24 Jul 2007,
  • PB wrote:

dont feel like coming out today, Christian Hippy - what about you?

;-)

PB

  • 10.
  • At 12:10 AM on 29 Jul 2007,
  • The Christian Hippy wrote:

Say now Shibboleth is your silence a sign of consent to your identity.

  • 11.
  • At 10:47 PM on 09 Aug 2007,
  • Shibboleth wrote:

No, my silence - hitherto- is simply because I have been on vacation.

Unfortunately I wasn't around to contribute to the thread on similarities between Wikipedia and the canon of Scripture. A little knowledge of redaction criticism might have cast some light on that one.

I have very little confidence in Wikipedia, I have to say. Citizendium is much more to my taste. See:

It seeks to avoid the tendentious, unscholarly nonsense that pervades so much of Wikipedia.

Shalom

Shibboleth

  • 12.
  • At 07:35 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • helenanne smith wrote:

Hey Shibboleth,

You've kinda missed the point here. The debate isn't about the credibility of wikipedia. It's about whether the composition of the bible reflects some of the interactive editing that we find on wikipedia. Duh!

  • 13.
  • At 08:27 PM on 11 Aug 2007,
  • Shibboleth wrote:

Hello Helen Anne


I haven't missed the point at all. I was merely permitting myself a segue to express a personal opinion upon the execrable Wikipedia. I am sorry that you failed to note my not too subtle change of direction.

Duh! I wonder if that is co-extensive with a Ö÷²¥´óÐãr Simpsonish D'oh!

Just for you Wikipedia fans. I will leave it to the really intelligent out there to decide if I am being stupid, hypocritical or darkly ironic in giving you a link to a Wikipedia article.

Best

Shibboleth

PS Crawley says I have to post something on redaction criticism; I will do so, but on the appropriate thread.

This post is closed to new comments.

Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD

Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation

Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.