|
Post by Zak on Mar 30, 2017 12:46:50 GMT
JenSai I remember seeing a picture of Chris's mum with a t-shirt which said 'I'm not shouting, I'm Italian!'. I think Mike Capuano is her brother. I have a friend who has a soft Durham accent. It's really nice. The only accent that irritates me is the New Zealand accent. I love NZ really I do but the accent .. Having said that the Australian accent isn't known for it's beauty either so I'll change the subject. @bob Very tasteful choice of boxers there, mate. I feel I know you better! I'm a bit of CK guy myself but I'm not picky. Your point about privacy on the internet is a salient one.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Mar 30, 2017 13:20:02 GMT
VoilĂ !
|
|
|
Post by JenSai on Mar 31, 2017 12:48:47 GMT
JenSai I have a friend who has a soft Durham accent. It's really nice. The only accent that irritates me is the New Zealand accent. I love NZ really I do but the accent .. Having said that the Australian accent isn't known for it's beauty either so I'll change the subject. @bob Very tasteful choice of boxers there, mate. I feel I know you better! I'm a bit of CK guy myself but I'm not picky. Your point about privacy on the internet is a salient one. The Kiwi accent is...irritating, grating even. I still love it as it's fun to do, but the Australian accent is so much nicer, rounder and laid back. Even if very similar. I get my undies from George (asda/walmart) occasionally online. I'm a 30 year old woman and I still get the character pants! (Wonder woman today, if you were wondering) They're not cheap, they're good value! Lol I clear my cache very regularly but not everyone in my household does. My mum ordered some trainers on Monday and they're still coming up as suggestions, along with nissan alternators for a 2.2 dci engine...which is what dad needs for the Almera *facepalm*
|
|
|
Post by Picap on Apr 4, 2017 17:15:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by JenSai on Apr 4, 2017 22:04:16 GMT
Rotfl
I've been banned, by my dad, from using any words ending in "...ly"
Edit: well apparently I basically use them far too often and obviously, annoyingly, boringly...you get the idea. Sombody buy the man a thesaurus!
|
|
|
Post by Picap on Apr 5, 2017 0:09:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Picap on Apr 5, 2017 0:14:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Picap on Apr 5, 2017 0:53:05 GMT
The Official Twitter account responding to Chris's Birthday tweet.
|
|
|
Post by mechevpao9 on Apr 5, 2017 5:22:27 GMT
The Official Twitter account responding to Chris's Birthday tweet. LOL twitter knows Chris's influence... that's a great response and I liked what he said in the USA interview, to all the trolls that tell him to "shut up" because he is "just an actor" also.. chris reads reviews and some interview about him... good!
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Apr 6, 2017 10:59:07 GMT
The Official Twitter account responding to Chris's Birthday tweet. LOL twitter knows Chris's influence... that's a great response and I liked what he said in the USA interview, to all the trolls that tell him to "shut up" because he is "just an actor" also.. chris reads reviews and some interview about him... good! I wrote before about actors having as much right as anyone to express opinions and that being wealthy doesn't exclude you from politics any more than it does the politicians. However, I am genuinely brain frozen after what Chris said in the USA interview about not reading and engaging on Twitter. Again it's something I'd like to ask him face to face about. My point is that he seems to be saying he doesn't read other people's tweets on the grounds that there is a lot of unpleasantness. However, for example there is a particular political/moral point about which Chris and I stand in opposite camps. (He's wrong and I'm right!). I am genuinely churned up with the desire to debate it with him as his stance on this is out of step with everything else he says. The utter frustration of trying to have a sensible debate with someone who is not listening is ridiculous. To my ears he just said he wants to express his opinions but is unwilling to listen to others. I'm sure that's not what he wanted to say but that is in effect the outcome. Read me but I'm not reading you. I will speak but not debate. Also if it's true that he doesn't read anyone's tweets then how does he pick up on and reply so quickly to tweets from other celebrities?
If he means - "I do read tweets, I am interested in other people's points of view but I won't get into debates with non-celebrities because that would bring that person a lot of attention from possibly millions of people many of whom are not very nice and I don't want to risk that" - then just say it. You see I have answers to these things but it's all guess work.
Twitter is amazingly good at spreading information (some of it even being true!) but kind of exemplifies a lot of what's wrong with politics at the moment. Too many statements, too many opinions and not enough sensible debate.
@mechevpao I noticed that too! He retweeted a review so he obviously does read them!! Or someone gives him the heads up.
|
|
|
Post by Picap on Apr 6, 2017 13:29:23 GMT
When discussing reasoned debate I infer he's referring to his live in person interactions. Twitter is not the platform for any kind of reasoned debate. It's a land of 140 characters populated by soundbites and unequal platforms. It's a platform better suited to a quick dissemination of information. Twitter is where Chris shares his opinions because he has that platform and feels strongly about some things that he's willing to use it but it's rarely where he debates because frankly as a celebrity that's mostly a losing proposition. It then becomes about entertainment for the twitter verse and internet more than any substantive issue. Even in skirmishes with people like Duke and Skrekl attacking him he's only responded a couple of times and one was not only disgustingly racist but pointedly and offensively toward people he cares about. There are too many people who want to get into it on the net with celebrities for their 15 minutes of fame.
He's said that he measures what he tweets because it's a soundbite format that can be easily re framed or twisted and spread all over the net. Look at something as innocuous as these recent interviews about continuing as Captain America. He's given the same response to everyone, some at the same time, and yet there are wildly disparate click bait headlines. Or the interview with Esquire where he says he feels rage but that when he's discussing politics he takes a more measured approach because he doesn't want to become white noise or completely disregard someone else' maybe valid point of view. But the only part quoted was "I feel rage" and it became the headline of numerous articles followed by the usual uptick in angry, ugly, insulting tweets.
Chris gets thousands, some times tens of thousand of tweets a day. Many are kind and or harmless, some are informative, while many others are disturbing and or offensive. Just the existence of the latter would make one loathe to read any tweets. This is the same reason many celebrities often have other people or businesses read through their fan mail first and then give them letters that are inoffensive or prioritize those they feel the celebrity should see. And that's not an instantaneous public platform where engaging with some anonymous person on the internet can quickly go wrong. Many actors started off engaging with fans on twitter and it became a mess that lead to them shutting that down or leaving Twitter entirely.
We know that in cases of kids with illnesses that want to reach him that other people he knows have brought the tweets to his attention, often days or weeks later. Similarly, he probably gets career related info - articles and reviews through his publicist or assistant.
As for how he sees the tweets of other celebrities, even if they're not mutuals they're filtered differently through the system and show up on his timeline differently. There are cases even then when he doesn't respond for days or maybe a week later because he is just not a constant presence on twitter. Even with his more recent picked up pace he's at less than 600 over more than 4 years. Some people have that many a month or week.
|
|
|
Post by Zak on Apr 6, 2017 15:04:59 GMT
This woke me up and got me interested. I found myself agreeing with everything that both Bob and picap said.
I only disagree with the political statements aspect. As we have agreed that Twitter is not an ideal platform for debate I think public figures should use think carefully about what they tweet. If you're stating that you are aware that your large audience gives you a great opportunity to reach out but at the same time you never read anyone's responses it kind sounds a bit arrogant. As we all know he's the least arrogant guy on earth then I presume he just didn't think through what he was saying. We've all done that.
You know I like putting the proverbial cat amongs the pigeons but I would like to put forward the theory that Chris overestimates the amount of Tweets he gets and is unduly pessimistic about their content.
What a brilliant invention Tweetdeck is. I have just used it to monitor @chrisevans mentions over the past 12 hours. It reached a peak 12 hours ago when he got 58 in one hour. The following hours went like this
11h = 43 10h = 30 9h = 33 8h = 32 7h =32 6h = 17 5h = 11 3h = 13 2h = 12 1h 26 under 1h = 38 and rising.
So roughly just over 300 in 12 hours. These were just tweets in which @chrisevans was mentioned, not necessarily tweets just directed at Chris. I presume that when he actually tweets himself it goes through the roof but I didn't go that far back. The vast majority were extremely short or just a picture. Only a tiny amount actually included any kind of question and none at all were abusive or rude. Running down through the column on Tweetdeck scanning the tweets from the past 12 hours, pausing to read the odd interesting one took 5 mins and 15 seconds. In all, if he really wanted to scan read every text he received it is actually not impossible.
I say this not to point out I'm on a boring night duty with nothing to do but to point out that Chris doesn't get as many tweets as we probably think. Also if Chris thinks the tweets he gets are abusive or unpleasant then my random 12 hours sample would suggest he is actually wrong.
I think the real reason he doesn't engage is presicely both the limitations mentioned by picap but also the 'guess work' by Bob. If Chris did directly answer you, you may well find yourself an overnight mini-celebrity and if you were actually disagreeing with him the rats may appear from the sewers. Nasty.
|
|
|
Post by mechevpao9 on Apr 6, 2017 19:49:16 GMT
he has over a 1000 answers to whatever he tweets, a lot of them are "ILY" others are "f*ck me daddy".... I assume he goes over them with a quick pan. But also, why engage? look at Don Cheadle, he is great but sometimes he is fighting over with some Trump supporters and it gets old after a while... also, the moment Chris answers a fan, that moment will be chaos, I've seen fans wanting to school him over things as if he needed to be schooled on something or it were our place as fans, I've also seen fans saying they are depressed and they need his attention or he/she would commit suicide. It's not as simple as "I won't get into debates with non-celebrities because that would bring that person a lot of attention", but it becomes a dangerous game. He reads stuff, he decides not to engage a never ending game, like he said to Mckenna you will learn about the ever eternal life in the internet or something like that. Some people think that because celebs have social media, that puts us all closer to them and in direct contact, but that is not the case and when it comes to engaging people in the internet, sometimes is better to ignore some comments than to engage, because people tend to get too heated in these places.
|
|
|
Post by Picap on Apr 6, 2017 23:43:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mechevpao9 on Apr 7, 2017 0:56:42 GMT
sounds like it will be an interesting interview... considering Chris tweeted about it an all. Can't wait to see it.
|
|