@KellyOxford

I woke up this morning to an annoying phone call, one that I let go to voicemail and then retrieved the extra-long message later.  Afterwards, I went onto Twitter.com, which has become my primary source of social networking because (unlike Facebook) strangers can interact with each other.

Blogging since 1997 (and before)

The first thing I noticed was that I had a new direct message.  I barely cared since I assumed it would be from a friend correctly my spelling in an earlier Tweet.

Instead it was from Kelly Oxford!  This was very cool because Kelly Oxford is the primary reason I enjoy Twitter more than any other website.  She has almost 200,000 followers, and I even follow people who follow her.

Overall, Kelly Oxford is an amazing woman!  She is often acknowledged as one of the first Twitter- or Tumblr-made celebs, netting a book deal and another to write a CBS sit-com.  More importantly, she is a married mother of three, and she usually transfers that home life into comedic observations (in 140 characters or less, at least on Twitter).  She was even honored by Canada's Cocktail in May 2011 as "uniquely Canadian" and one of the leading voices in Canadian social media.

In reality, her book deal and TV series were NOT the result of either Tumblr or Twitter as interested parties can piece together by reading through either feed, and it was mostly her own hard work/talent and life's enjoyment.  She recently attempted to debunk the myth that Twitter turned her into a writer because she had been doing it well before the advent of Twitter.  Think along the lines of Geocities, and even before that... way back when we used paper and pencils.  But, the whole "Twitter-made celeb" title is just too marketable for the media to ignore, so I'm not sure how many of her own fans know the real story.

Anyway, this person took a second out of her busy life to send me a Direct Message, which turned out to be a bad thing since it read as follows:

"Do you feel like shit to know that 1000's laughed and rt'd that tweet and u were the only 1 to complain."

My first thought was "Was I complaining?"  Here's the story: last night she sent out a Tweet that said "More often than not, a paycheck is compensation for putting up with bullshit."  Very funny!  People should laugh and retweet it.  Including myself, because I was one of them on April 8th (the day after I put in my two-week notice) when she tweeted "A paycheck is simply compensation for putting up with bullshit."  Amen to that!

Additionally, I started following Kelly Oxford in the first place because I recited one of her Tweets at work, and it got a big laugh from my co-workers.  It was during Hugh Hefner's engagement to his would-be runaway bride.  She tweeted that the fiancee claims she "doesn't notice the 60-year age difference" but what she means is "I can't count that high."  Kelly Oxford also repeated that Tweet about a week earlier as well (slightly updated to keep it relevant to today).

Meanwhile, I had on my television at the same time and it was advertising the new shows coming out next month.  It was really hammering home that we could expect an "all new season" for these shows that I don't even watch in the first place.  It struck me that she was probably knowingly repeating past tweets to coincide with the reruns on television, so I tweeted the following.

"I cannot wait for the new season of @KellyOxford tweets! #reruns"

Unfortunately, there was a simple misunderstanding. On my part. I didn't know calling attention to the repetition could be taken as an insult (since it would require some devotation to even pinpoint it) and I was obviously very wrong about her trying to coincide with reruns on TV, so I can easily see how it was read as a complaint now.  Especially if she didn't scan through my profile to see that I had retweeted it previously.  With a family and 200,000 other readers, it would be a waste of her time.  Additionally, I know a LOT of her hate mail comes from men, and I have my picture on display at Twitter (mostly because she once said you should use real pictures, because otherwise everyone will assume you're fat), so I could understand her assumption that I was mocking her repetition.

Looking like a stuck-up French Canadien.

Plus, the hashtag is a tricky beast in Twitter lingo.  It does not have a defined use.  When I wrote #reruns, I was referencing the reruns on TV.  I don't think reruns are a bad thing myself since I watch "South Park" every night on syndication despite owning every boxset, but reruns probably have a negative reputation in Hollywood, where Kelly Oxford is far more cultured than I am.  Regardless, I figured if I knew she was repeating Tweets, then she definitely knew that she was repeating them.  I suspect she has repeated more than just the two in my example, but it's hard to tell because a lot of them are general observations that are always good for a laugh (like the paycheck one).

The thing is, the same people don't stick around on Twitter so the turnover of her 200,000 followers is pretty high.  It makes sense for her to resend her best work a few times (A) for new followers to enjoy, and (B) for old followers who may relate more closely to the observation now than previously.  I understand that logic, and I support it.  Kelly Oxford's account should be used as a case study on leveraging social media successfully.  Unfortunately, my drawing attention to the repeat Tweet(s) came off as a critique for lacking new observations.

So, I simply explained myself in a couple of Tweets directed to her.  I had hoped she would read them, but dealing with the mass of Tweets she is, I wasn't sure.  Therefore, I sent the following statements if she wanted to read them since I believe the only difference between an excuse and an explanation is the listener.

My apologies, no complaint; just a tie-in to TV currently advertising its "all-new" seasons b/c your tweets > most TV shows. (and) I support repeat Tweets for new followers to LOL+RT since your list is near 200K (and U R busy in life beyond Twitter). Sorry!

One of my latest pet peeves is when celebrities and other public figures respond to hate and ignore praise.  I noticed this fact during the Stanley Cup when I often replied to the witty commentary of a former Hockey Night in Canada producer on Twitter.  He made a silly observation about a player who should have been suspended after that player scored a goal in a crucial game, stating that the guy should not even be playing, let alone scoring goals.  I wrote a quick reply, basically saying that if he is on the ice, then he should be trying to score, period.  Right before I sent it, I decided to dress it up a bit to make it more edgy.  I simply added "Get real," at the beginning.  And, despite numerous other unanswered Tweets, this one got a reply.

I also noticed Christopher Titus would often get into public arguments with his followers on Twitter.  Twitter is an awesome channel to communicate with strangers, but arguing with strangers who are way more famous than you is lame (and arguing with strangers who are way less famous than you doesn't make sense to me either).  I couldn't understand why Titus, who is constantly showered with praise and love by his fans, would spend more time acknowledging his critics.  But I don't understand the pursuit of fame in the first place, so I'll just classify it as a pet peeve.

Today I realized the great irony of this pet peeve is that it does not extend to people I really like.  Despite her obvious "attitude" (which doesn't bother me because I worked backstage at pro wrestling shows for 5 years; plus I like attitude, including my own), part of me felt that Kelly Oxford was asking a real question.  If so, then she would be open-minded to a reply.

Shortly after posting my apology tweets, I got another Direct Message from her, which made my morning complete:

Sorry!! I didn't mean to sound like a bitch. I guess I did, but only because I'm sensitive!! :(

"No apology necessary ... keep the laughs comin' and my thanks for each of them" was my reply.  I love knowing that Kelly Oxford is so passionate about her Twitter feed and followers that she is ready to take on anyone who tries to suck her enjoyment out of it.



Also read, http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2011/03/catching-up-with-kelly-oxford.html

Life At The Movies

Often people like to go to the movies as an escape.  I understand the sentiment, although just as often, I like to see a true human drama play out.  In fact, I am often critical of films when the characters do not jive with realistic characters, aside from the "escape" movies where one person can truly devote his/her life to making another person's life miserable or that the entire fictitious world would be as captivated by the story's events as the writer thought they should be (e.g. "The Terminal" or "Fight Club").

As such, there is a big difference (in my mind) between "movies" and "films."  Movies are for the sake of entertainment, and they should often be viewed as an escape.  Films are for the sake of art, and they should reflect life more realistically.

Rarely we are treated to one between both distinctions, but I have to admit that "My Cousin Vinny" comes really close.  Clearly, it was more movie than film.  But it is a good education, and often recommended viewing for law students.