Digital Roses atop the Anisphere

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose,
By any other pseudonym would smell as sweet;

Names, quite simply, are the labels by which we refer to objects. Though these objects might be inanimate, or non-sentient life such as a flower, they are mostly associated with people. These names can be arbitrary, or descriptive. The latter obvious in English surnames; inspired by the bearer’s profession or personal characteristics, alternatively patronymic or matronymic, or even an indication of one’s estate. As such, a surname will hold as much importance as the family and individual that bears it.

Then what of pseudonyms? Noms de plume are often created to be worn as masks for the internet. They act as a defence, or as a shield, but also impart presence, and perhaps existence itself, online. Yet, can they be said to hold as much weight, bestow as much meaning, or bear as much importance as those we use, shuffling along this mortal coil?

In A World Of My Own: The Anisphere Beyond The Kitchen Window

[Insert witty quote here in desperate attempt to link picture with post.]

Suppose you glance at Twitter. What, pray, do you see?

It will most likely be your timeline; with its short textual messages reaching desperately towards the bottom of the screen.

Within this, a reply is relatively easy to spot, and its context easily understood by expanding the conversation. From time to time, however, one might see a reply that is not so average. A tweet, perhaps initially seeming a non sequitur and without the characteristic mention at the beginning, that is nevertheless a reply.

These fascinate me for a number of reasons. One of which is that they offer a glimpse of another’s timeline. A peek into another’s world.

The Ani-sphere All Atwitter

Twitter is an intriguing beast. It is one of the two dominant social networks found on today’s internet, and at its simplest, offers one the ability to broadcast one’s thoughts to other people. Admittedly anywhere on the internet is now wont to do this, however, twitter’s defining trait lies in its limit of 140 characters per post. One could perhaps argue it a social network centred about brevity.

Having such a limitation, presumably it can be dismissed? Not worthy of one’s attention?