First Draft

My first draft. Enjoy! :)

Blog Post 9

As I revisited my earlier posts, I found it difficult to find a post that I could either forward or counter. After a few minutes of scrutiny, I rediscovered my second blog post, all the way back from September 2^nd. I know it's odd, but I feel that I should counter this post because it is not necessarily true. I wrote:

"Why do people write? The answer is a simple one: to inform others. Though it is true that some writers keep their works hidden, the works are written down because it simulates bearing one's soul to another human being. Blogs, however, almost guarantee that it will be read by a reader. If an amateur writer writes a piece, there is a strong chance that it will go unread. Blogs give everyone, despite their writing skills, the ability to be heard; in other words, one does not have to be a novelist or journalist in order to be noticed. Some of the top bloggers of the world are everyday people."

 

Though it is true that blogs give a writer the chance to be heard, it does not mean that the writer will be heard; there are numerous blogs on the Internet that go unnoticed on a daily basis, much of ours included (if you exclude the class, who is required to read it). Of course, this is not to say that the writer will not be heard either. With the advent of the search engine, blogger's blogs can easily be discovered by subject, but those with obscure subjects may not have many (if any) readers.

Blog Post 8

What exactly is countering? Well, if one were to define the term without reading the chapter in Rewriting, his or her answer would most likely be "proving someone wrong"; however, that is not how Harris defines it. Harris claims the act of countering "is not to nullify but to suggest a different way of thinking," or in other words, using the text of others to provide a spring-board for another view. Of course, this view can be the total opposite, but the writer should think of countering as adding more to the conversation. My junior AP English and Composition teacher, Ms. Carnefix, was also quite partial to this definition. She required us to qualify our arguments, saying our view was "true most of the time, except in these circumstances."

Finding an example of this in a blog was a bit more difficult, as most posts were either forwarding or simply contradicting a source. After frantic searching, I came across yet another article at The Daily Kos. My apologies for the crude title, but it does, in fact, counter. The post starts out with Republican congressman Steve King quoted as saying "All Americans have health care, every single one," which, as we all know is blatantly false. The article then uses this quote to firmly establish that many Americans are left without healthcare through examples that illustrate the dire conditions these people are trapped in. By establishing that Americans need healthcare, the article takes "All Americans have health care, every single one," and turns it into "Americans need healthcare because too many are left without it—which is dangerous."

Blog Post 7

At first, upon reading the prompt for this post, I drew a blank. Where could I ever find such a thing? I was (obviously) having a "slow moment," as I like to call it. After a few seconds it hit me—almost all blog posts are somehow forwarding. So, being the enterprising young scholar that I am, I pulled up The Daily Kos, and sure enough, almost all of the posts were forwarding in some fashion. Which did I decide on? This one! I would use quotes as examples; however, the blog post itself is a video. I picked this one because it is strictly forwarding (specifically illustration), yet it still makes a statement. The author, Jed Lewison, created a montage of FOX News coverage of the New York 23^rd District congressional race between Dede Scozzafava, Doug Hoffman, and Bill Owens, and uses the video to point out the extreme bias of FOX News and to point out the hypocrisy in the station. The video, made up of a series of clips from over 2 hours worth of source material, starts off with the claim that the election is turning into "a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party." As the video continues, the reporters of FOX News obviously frown upon both the Democratic candidate, Owens, and, strangely enough, the Republican candidate, Scozzafava, while showing clear support for the Conservative party candidate, Hoffman. Why was the Republican candidate between the crosshairs? She was not conservative enough. Later on, the clips show the station celebrating the polls with Hoffman ahead in this "important" election, but to their surprise, Hoffman loses to Owens. After this occurs, a reporter is shown somberly saying that he felt the election was "grossly exaggerated" election in a "rather obscure congressional district," and claims the real civil war in politics are among Democrats. I consider myself a Democrat, and this civil war is news to me. Of course, Lewison could not have included all of the source material and get his point across in a timely, convenient manner, so he left out a good hour and fifty minutes worth (though it was probably repeating itself as most news channels do). Other than that, nothing is altered. The true essence of the broadcast remains, which ultimately contradicts itself.

Blog Post 6

How are the blog that I am following and the New York Times related? At first glance, the two are utterly unrelated. But a reader of both can make connections with the inner workings off both. Like the New York Times, the Paris Blog is comprised of many authors, each giving a different view of Paris and life within it. They both provide the quirky, off-beat articles that I love to read. There is one main difference between the two; the New York Times supplies me with more factual information and told from the third person, whereas the Paris Blog is much more opinionated and deeply personal. Even then, I am still learning from the blog. What kinds of things am I learning? If I did not start following this blog, how would I know that there is a fair-trade chocolate store in the 17éme arronidissement or that there is a crisis-hotline for English-speaking residents of Paris? Though it is true that this does not help me now, it will help me when I accomplish my goal of living in Paris. Even if, for some strange reason, that I never accomplish that goal, it is still educational—though not necessarily in a factual way. In some fashion, this blog is already letting me live in Paris, through the posts of the authors. It is, more or less, a trial run just so I can see if I like Paris (and so far, I do!). I am also learning about the human experience—an artistic view of life—through it. The New York Times is also educational, but mostly in a factual way. Even though it is a good thing, it still feels "cold" when compared to the blog. The blog would almost certainly fall into the category of peers—they just feel so personal. The New York Times is definitely still in the press category.

Blog Post 5

Do Jarvis' and Sullivan's theories on the news and blogging, respectively, agree? Of course! They are almost entirely the same. Jarvis claims that the news is different from "back then" (though he fails to give us a tangible era). Now, news is all around us in many sources, ones when can respond to, creating new stories, ad infinitum. This is a clone of Sullivan's theory on blogging: blogs are posted and then commented on, spurring new blog posts. Sullivan describes how people share information on blogs through links. Jarvis claims people are "distributors" of the news article because of this very same reason. Both authors would agree on this new process of writing and distribution. But are their theories completely uniform? It depends on how one interprets Jarvis' article. Does he dislike the new process or love it? Many of my fellow classmates have felt that Jarvis feels animosity to the new process; however, Jarvis is actually (and obviously) a proponent of it. Why is this obvious? For one, he never says a bad thing about the process; he just points out the differences. Secondly, he refers to the "old process" as everything being filtered through the press, which has a negative connotation to it, whereas the "new process" has unfiltered, raw news, ripe for the reading. Finally, he owns a blog—a piece in the puzzle he likes to call the "Me Sphere." With all of these obvious clues as to whether or not he is a fan of the "new news process," how can one not know his point of view? This shows that Sullivan's theories are almost a complete match of Jarvis'. The theories are so similar, it is almost as if Sullivan's article was rewritten to apply to news in general, or vice versa.

Blog Post 4

I am going to come straight out and say it. This article was extremely difficult to understand. Jarvis, it seems, has great difficulty putting this concept into words, and even then, he still resorts to drawing unclear, plain charts to accompany the article. I had to read the article twice, once completely aloud. There is a particular sentence that I could not decipher, the meaning of which still alludes me: "This is replaced today by a press-sphere in which any of many sources can, thanks to links, add up a story and to fulfilling the need or desire for news and information." I have read this sentence aloud multiple times, each with a different emphasis and inflection, yet I still cannot reap the tiniest morsel of meaning from it. Jarvis also uses pronouns in ways that make what he is trying to say unclear. Perhaps he did not go back and read what he wrote after he finished writing.

Though some of it is almost completely baffling, the parts that do make sense hit the subject on the nose. There is, in fact, a new way the news process works and a modern news ecosystem. Thanks to the Internet, news does not have to come from the press anymore; it can even be found as it is happening, such as a radical new policy posted on a company's website. In terms of the new process, I had never really considered it before; however, the news in today's society is not a one-time deal like before the Internet came into fruition. It truly is ongoing (though there will eventually come a point where the story loses a large amount of interest and is not talked about much anymore). Jarvis' concept that readers are now distributors is also novel, but also completely true. How many people email news stories to their friends or post it on Facebook?

Blog Post 3

Reading the New York Times has been surprisingly educational (I know, that sounds odd). It was surprisingly educational because I learned things I did not know would even be in the newspaper. For example, I learned that medical marijuana is legal in California, but a large amount of dispensaries have opened and are turning a profit, becoming a real problem (though, if no one is getting hurt, I fail to see the problem). A six-year-old Cub Scout in Delaware was suspended from his elementary school because he brought a camping utensil set with which to eat his lunch. Why? Because it had a small two inch knife to cut food. I learned that a particle accelerator in Switzerland may be potentially sabotaging itself from the future because the particles it would create are so abhorred by nature. If a human decreases the amount of calories his body requires in a day by 25%, his body temperature drops, arteries clear, and years are added to his life. All of these little tidbits and more have jumped into my mind, some of which are so intriguing that reading them almost surpasses the time that I learned that antimatter is real and has been created in a laboratory and that everything may be made up by waves. Sadly, I have been skipping out on those more "pertinent" articles—the ones dealing with the Middle East, or the government, or the economy. All in all, I feel my decisions are largely better now, because I have had insight on some of them, and I generally feel more educated.

The Paris Blog

I am following The Paris Blog, a blog dealing with the thoughts and experiences of expats in Paris.

Author: A large variety of "Anglophone expats in Paris."

Purpose: Publish the voices of the authors, detailing their thoughts and experiences.

Audience: People interested in Paris from the viewpoint of an English-speaking person. It is especially helpful for those planning on moving to Paris.

Blog Post 2

Comparing everyone's news sources had a surprisingly strange effect on me. It made me realize that I am not alone when it comes to my lack of news sources. Many of us stated that we were lacking in any major source, and I did not feel like an outsider like I felt I would. I would love to be informed when it came to the news, but it just takes time that I do not have. True, I do spend an abnormally large amount of time on Facebook, but at the same time, I am also doing other stuff on the Internet, such as looking up random things on Wikipedia or shopping. Many of us also relied on others to gather what is going on in the world. Reflecting on this is actually a bit frightening—many of us are either missing huge events that are going on in the world, or if we hear something about it, it is not necessarily accurate or the full story, and almost certainly not unbiased. We're the future of our country, and if we do not know everything that is going on, then our country is in very dangerous hands indeed. There were a few of us, however, that did watch a news source (though I was expecting many more). I was disappointed by those that watch FOX news, though. The station resorts to scare tactics and is infamous for its super-conservative mindset and take on news stories. It is quite similar to what Hedges talks about in his article, where people use the Internet to read news that only catered to his or her interests.

Blogs

http://theparisblog.com/
This is the blog that I chose on my own. I chose it because it was written by an expatriat living in Paris, which is one of my future goals.

http://dailykos.com/
I chose this blog from the list because it's liberal, as am I.

Blog Post 2.1:

Where do I get my news?  Upon first thoughts, my mind drew a blank. I guess that is not a good sign. But then, I delved into the inner workings of my brain and analyzed the last few months and discovered where I really do get my news.  On occasion, I watch the local news or a national news broadcast, but I usually obtain my news from the Internet. About a week ago I was lucky enough to find and download an application for my iPod from the New York Times (which is really neat, and everyone should get it if they have an iPhone or iPod Touch—it is free!), and it has vastly increased the rate at which I acquire news.  Before this wondrous invention, I mainly got my news from, well, Facebook—but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Think about it—Facebook is a great place for news to spread! Statuses, links, photos, videos, and more, all flow by the hundreds, if not thousands, by a user on a daily basis. It would be strange if news did not travel rapidly through Facebook. Of course, I also got news from the obligatory news websites, such as CNN and BBC, through RSS feeds on my browser. The only thing I did not like about these sources was that most of the news was about events in Iraq, which in my opinion, is the same stuff repeated time and time again. My second main source is my peers; they provide both factual information on events that I might have overlooked, but they also add new insight on events of which I had prior knowledge.  Overall, one thing is clear. I need to find more news sources as soon as possible.


Sorry this was late! I slept all day because I think I'm coming down with something.

2nd draft (Again)

Well, I tried to post it last night, but it apparently didn't work. Yay for technology!
2nd Draft

Essay

My essay can be found here. It's in the right format in my Word document, but Google Docs is a little bit funny. Enjoy!

Blog Post 9: Reflections

Before walking into English on the first day of classes, if one would have told me that I would be blogging in English, I would have reacted one of these two ways: I would have been very skeptical, or I would have been dreading it. In all honesty I found blogging (and writing in general) to be a bore. I also did not regard blogging as writing on a collegiate level. I had no prior experience with either writing or reading blogs. Ignorance, in this case, was definitely not bliss. I had no idea what I was missing out on—news, gossip, opinions, and everything else can be found in a blog, and I had almost no idea! And better yet, all of this information can be reflected upon to view subjects in a completely different light, something everyone can stand to practice every now and then, just for the sake of making life more peaceful.

Still, I will admit, writing is not a favorite activity of mine, nor will it ever be a hobby (well, as of right now, at least). The blogs also came with a difficult side: starting. Writing an introduction is a bit difficult for me. This is very discouraging when you are O. C. D. like me, and you have to write everything in order, or it just bothers you to no end. I also learned that writing comes easily once the screen on Microsoft Word has more black on it than white—that white screen which I have stared blankly at before many a paper poured from my fingers, drops at first, but then becoming a waterfall. Better yet, as the reader with "new literacy" skills would prefer, writing blogs were a piece of cake after I had some of it finished.

I have also found myself looking at more intellectual websites, though my Facebook addiction is still here and will be for quite some time.

An outside source...

This article is most likely going to be one of my outside sources for the essay. It compares and contrasts learning through computers and learning through books; however, I am on the fence about using it because it was published in February/March of 1998. What do you all think?

Blog Post 8:

MISREAD PROMPT; ACCIDENTALLY GOT POSTS 7 AND 8 INTERTWINED
As time goes on, newspapers are becoming more and more obsolete; the speed at which the news is distributed (usually the day after something happens, maybe longer), cannot match the speed of the Internet, which is instant. Sadly, this means that the numbers of newspapers in the country will, in the future, be drastically lower than that of today. They will not be totally eradicated, as mankind has a fondness of "reminiscing" and "doing things the old fashioned way." But, as they slowly decline, Hedges claims the fabric of democracy will also decline; he claims that virtually all news we read online is controlled by a few corporations, much like the news in 1984 by George Orwell. Most Americans get their news online, either through corporately owned news channels or from places that only exist to reinforce certain views (FOX News, a combination of both, comes to mind).

This article was much more fairly written than Hedges' last article, but he still manages to use his post to attack a politician. This time it is George W. Bush. Why must he use his articles to attack someone? It generally leaves a sour taste in my mouth; someone that possesses such skill in writing is ruining his works by attacking others. This does not go to say I was a fan of Bush, but there is a time and place for that kind of thing. He also falls into his old habit of not citing sources, though this go-round, his facts seem much more believable (though they do still seem a bit inflated). If Hedges were to remedy these ailments to his writing, he would be a very persuasive author.

Blog Post 7: Illiterate, or Just Lazy?

Are Americans really becoming illiterate? That is what Chris Hedges wants us to believe. But is it true? Hedges claims that over 92 million of the population of America is illiterate or semi-literate, a term he defines as those "who read at a fourth- or fifth-grade level" (1). He also goes on to say that the illiterate will believe mostly everything they are told and do no research it to back it up. Hedges says politicians need only a story that does not have to be true. He claims that "it can be completely at odds with the facts" (2). This is where the hipocrisy lies in his argument; all of is information is just written on the page, no sources, no outside references. I, as an "illiterate person,"  most likely one of his "42%" of high school gradutates that "never reads a book" would not even have the ability to look up his facts to check to see if they were true. At times, it even seems as if this article was written in a hysterical frenzy attacking Barack Obama because Hedges was bitter that Obama won the presidency (as indeed, this article was published a week after the election ended).

Thompson's article, however, appeared it was not written in a blind rage, and he points out, citing his sources, that our generation is more literate than ever; more than "38 percent of [what we write] took place out of the classroom" (1). This is significant, as as short as 40 years ago, almost no one wrote outside of school, except for the occasional letter. He adds that the social networking phenomenon has also greatly increased our ability to modify our tone and judge our audience in order to successfully get our point across (a lesson of which Hedges should take note).

While it is true in Hedges' claim that we are becoming more image-based as a society, that does not necessarily mean that we are illiterate; it just proves to show that we are becoming lazier as technology progresses, to the point where reading takes too much effort as opposed to looking at an image and having our brain do the work for us.

Blog Post 6: In With the New

Carr poses the question "Is Google making us stupid?" What is his answer? He claims that humans are not becoming stupid; they are, in fact, becoming more machine-like and losing the ability to do "human" things, such as analyze complex texts. For example, studies have shown that most people now skim web pages and jump around, never going back to reread, which is much like a search engine is in today's world. Carr provides a great analogy for the situation: "Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski" (1).

Though Carr's claim can be seen as correct, it is not entirely applicable for all situations. We humans are still expressive, as evidenced in our love and addiction to certain social networking web sites (Facebook immediately comes to mind). The proliferation of blogging as a viable source of writing is another example of a need to be human. Though blogging is lacking in complexity, blogging remains a major output for human expression. A computer-like being would certainly not be such an avid proprietor of social networking or composing its own works.

Free will is what separates us from machines; computers respond only to the basic formula of "Input yields Output," whereas humans do things that, more often than not, make no sense, especially from a computer's point of view, such as writing down what we think, having and forming opinions, or having emotions. Would a computer talk with a person? Perhaps, but only if the person were to initiate the conversation.

Though our ability to think in the ways of the past may be drastically changing, we are becoming more intelligent. The answers to everything we have ever wondered slowly creep into our mind and remain there as we continue to use the Internet, a thought unheard of merely 25 years ago. If losing our old way of thinking is the only way to gain such intelligence, then I say out with the old and in with the new.

Blog Post 5

Joseph Harris defines writing as juxtaposing one's thoughts with what has also been written, almost always in response. This, he calls, is intertextuality. This is also true in Sullivan's view of blogging; Sullivan takes the responses on his blogs and reworks them into new postings. The two authors also agree that writing is meant to be responded to; however, this is much more apparent in blogging than in traditional styles of writing. Blogs have the expectation of receiving comments, through various functions on the blogging site and general blogging etiquette, whereas traditional writing lacks the ease of response. This leads to where the two authors differ in their views, which also shows the split in the difference between blogging and traditional methods of writing. In traditional writing, Harris claims that "readers rarely respond directly to a writer with comments on his or her text" (5). In blogging, however, half of the experience comes from comments on the author's work that is instantly accessible to the author. Blogging is 21^st century writing—it allows for the reader and writer to interact in such a way that has never been possible. Of course, it will never have the same literary standing as traditional methods (books being a particular medium that comes to mind), as anyone can publish a blog, whereas books and other published documents must go through a cycle of editors, which leads to a more polished and accurate work.

Harris' views on reading startled me, but upon considering it, I find it rings true. The author claims that readers read texts (always with an opinion on what is written, never completely neutral), and that "a book is a text, but so are movies, plays, songs, paintings, sculptures, photographs, cartoons, videos, billboards, advertisements, web pages, and the like" (11). The relationship with the reader and writer must always exist, as when one does not exist, the other fails to have a function; therefore, the actor, the director, the artist, the musician, the photographer, and the graphic designer are all writers. This thought is revolutionary to me, and the very thought of it makes me look at everything around me in a new light.

Blog Post 4: MLIA

Going from blog to blog, I was not surprised in the least to discover that everyone (well, I'll admit, I didn't look at every blog) got on Facebook. But why? Facebook is a way for people to stay connected in a world where people are used to seeing more of their friends and family than in prior years before the cell phone or the internet. It gives everyone the excuse to "hang out" with old pals (or new ones), though indirectly. Strangely enough, I noticed that no one who's blog I read got on MySpace. Four years ago, that would certainly not have been the case. Facebook would barely have shown up, if at all. MySpace still held the title of "Most Used Social Network." I find it funny how this drastic change took place, as back then everyone loved MySpace and hated Facebook, whereas today, the opposite is true.

Though everyone used it, I tragically discovered that I use Facebook more than anyone else. It makes me sad, but at the same time, I don't care because I love Facebook so much. I wonder if there really is such a thing as a Facebook addiction. If there is, I definitely have one. Are there others who share this addiction? Are there any in the class?

This study has also opened the doors to new websites for me. I had never been to My Life is Average until today, though I had heard about it before. The posts on it were hilarious. In fact, they were so enjoyable, they made me put off doing this until I had read 26 pages of posts.

After contemplating what I wrote, I've determined that the Internet is my excuse to procrastinate. Oh well!

Blog Post 3: Facebook owns me. :(

Sunday, September 6, 2009:
11:13 AM: Got on the Internet
11:13 AM:  facebook.com—checked messages, read statuses, talked to friends
1:32 PM:  louisville.edu/email—checked email
1:34 PM:  facebook.com—checked messages, read statuses, talked to friends
3:13 PM: Got off the Internet

Monday, September 7, 2009:
11:52 AM: Got on the Internet
11:52 AM: facebook.com—checked messages, read statuses, talked to friends
12:04 PM: fmylife.com—read interesting and humorous events in the lives of others
1:32 PM: facebook.com—checked messages, read statuses, talked to friends
1:49 PM: true.com—joined for fun*, made a profile**, looked around, laughed with some friends about it.
2:12 PM: facebook.com—checked messages, read statuses, talked to friends
2:32 PM: chemistry.com—joined for fun*, made a profile**, looked around, laughed with some friends about it.
3:24 PM: facebook.com—checked messages, read status, talked to friends
3:41 PM: match.com—joined for fun*, made a profile**, looked around, laughed with some friends about it.
4:02 PM: facebook.com—checked messages, read statuses, talked to friends
4:34 PM: Got off the Internet
8:56 PM: Got on the Internet
8:56 PM: facebook.com—checked messages, read statuses, talked to friends
9:05 PM: fmylife.com—read about the miserable lives of others
9:24 PM: mylifeisg.com—read about the good fortune of others
9:56 PM: facebook.com—checked messages, read statuses, talked to friends
10:07 PM: ebay.com—looked at Eb Clarinets
10:13 PM: wwbw.com—looked at Eb Clarinets
10:23 PM: milesaheadmusic.net—looked for Eb clarinets
10:39 PM: blogger.com—wrote and published blog

*joined for fun: seen as an ad on facebook. I joined because I recently turned 18 and did it just because I could.
**made a profile: typed my interests, about me, etc.
As you may be able to tell, facebook is an addiction for me, and it dominates my life. Sadly, I hated facebook two years ago. How did this happen?

Blog Post 2:

Why do people write? The answer is a simple one: to inform others. Though it is true that some writers keep their works hidden, the works are written down because it simulates bearing one's soul to another human being. Blogs, however, almost guarantee that it will be read by a reader. If an amateur writer writes a piece, there is a strong chance that it will go unread. Blogs give everyone, despite their writing skills, the ability to be heard; in other words, one does not have to be a novelist or journalist in order to be noticed. Some of the top bloggers of the world are everyday people. This is one of the reasons why Sullivan blogs.

Why else would Sullivan blog? The raw emotion found in blogs due to their spontaneity is another key reason. Strangely enough, as a professional writer, it sometimes seems as though one tries to keep the writer separate from the piece—no sense of personality. Blogs, on the other hand, are rife with personality—quirks, humor, anger, jealousy, and any other human emotion can be found lurking in the depths of the "blogosphere," as Sullivan puts it. These emotions in blogs ultimately lead to an intimate relationship between the writer and reader, which "is unlike the bond that the The Times, say, develops with its readers," even though the two may cover the same events.

Sullivan also blogs because it allows him to gather knowledge and a deeper understanding of what he is blogging about; conversations over his texts mixed with the ease of acquiring information on the Internet allows the writer to gather additional information quickly or to see the story from different points of view, which gives the writer a deeper appreciation for the topic.

Blog Post 1: Glorious and Majestic

My blog was an enjoyable experience to make. I have owned two prior blogs; however, I could not keep up with them. Hopefully, this time, I will stick with it, lest I fail the class!

Though the process was a simple one, I had a great deal of trouble coming up with a name. I knew that I wanted my title to be in French (which is strange for an English class, I agree) because of my love of the French language and culture, but I just could not think of a title to save my life. I had an epiphany and wanted to use either "Le Mot Juste" or "Les Mots Justes," which means "The Right Word" or "The Right Words," respectively, but both were taken. After much thought, I finally decided on "Le Moment Suprême," which literally means "The Supreme Moment," though in practice its meaning is similar to that of "The Climax." Blogs are personal, so the title must also be such, but I have the most trouble with titles. They seem to levitate, glorious and majestic, right outside of my grasp.

The process in itself is quite similar to setting up a Facebook account; one registers his email, name, and so forth, but the similarities end there. While it is true that MySpace allows its users a blog, and Facebook allows "notes," a combination of MySpace's bulletins and blog features, the emphasis is more on discovering what one's friends are doing instead of hearing what they have to say. This site has a strong emphasis on reading what others have to say, anything from a very strong stance on a worldwide issue to something hilarious that the poster's dog did the previous night.