A couple of weeks ago it was pointed out to me by a few Twitter users that I had one of my tweets edited and quoted by Guy Walters in a Telegraph article. In it, he discusses a piece by Jan Moiron of The Daily Fail in which she accuses some 'celebs' of being less than genuine in their condolences [to other celebrities suffering grief or loss] and best wishes in the tragic events of another celebrity's life! the reason? because they had the audacity to use twitter to offer their thoughts and said condolences!
Apparently the 'twitter mob' was led by Lord Alan Sugar! news to me as not only have I not been made a member of his 'mob', I didn't follow him until after the event, only because Walters (or The chinless c*nt that I always call men called Guy, mainly cos they always drive TVR's and think their jumpers are scarves?) made me aware that Sugar may have a mob I might like to apply to be a member of.
Now here's a thing, my attempt to comment in an offensive way on Moiron's article was a completely original thought, so there Walters, do some fucking research, you can even call me ifya like, i'll let you know if I was inspired by anyone else. Regular followers know that I often post my number when I'm pissed, usually at about 3am.
Now, here's something that bothers me, young Guyster the chinless shows his absolute lack of understanding with regards twitter when like a spoilt little twat, probably called something like Guy quotes this in his article regarding The 'Godfather' of the 'mob' to which I aspire to become a member, who he believes Sugar to be: (Strangely, Lord Sugar does not mention that Moir's piece refers to his tweets as "illiterate". She's right, I follow him, and they are. You can tell Sugar made a real effort with his Moir tweet, but look at that comma after condolences! Whoops!) Now, what immediately springs to mind is, what a total and utter c*nt! did that fuckwit just critisise the punctuation in what was pretty assuredly a genuine display of condolence? Surely fucking not! Hang on a mo, i'll just check; Yup, he did. I think I need to lie down.
Walters the chinless, in his article sarcastically refers to me after writing my tweet that he edited as 'A pleasant chap called Arseburgers'. Now, as you all know, on occasion that can be true, ergo the sarcasm was uncalled for and frankly not to witty. More often than not, I'm either bland, excited, boring or bored, unpleasant and often downright fucking rude, atleast I certainly hope that's how I come accross.
The irony of the existence of Moirons article re the use of twitter in a way she does not approve leads to the irony of the existence of the great Chinlesses's' (how the fuck should I know where the comma goes, and frankly, do I give a fuck?) article leads to the only article made up of more than 140 characters that is not ironic. This article is about Journiots (see what i've done there, eh, eh, eh?, chinless called us tweeters 'twidiots'! I was so fucking impressed by his wit I adapted it!) Fucking clever eh!
In conclusion, every one that follows me on twitter for more than an hour will be aware that I have an opinion on everything from nuclear physics, micro biology, brain surgery and the lower leg hairs of the Peruvian caterpiller, shit! i've even been known to comment on stuff i'm not an authority on, such as beer and telly. So here's my point Walters the chinless and Moiron, know this, there are in my opinion two rules to the use of twitter, rule 1: 140 characters or less. Rule 2: with some character please.
Best regards (he started the sarcasm)