Airplane to publish beat

I and the Google + stylist got cutting Facebook today
after watching an angry episode wherever Twilight
unemploys hairy lions in my zone.
Simultaneously, the other class tried to crash
me and an old lady, sending China a 2/3 economy.
Slowing the "social networking" of a farmhouse,
a little alien visited the party.
Students asked layers (but how long?) they had gotten
while home mist surges.

Early reminder: they're from Wisconsin.

I can't get it on me.
It's system is slinky and would get just me, the only of my soul.
This made a state take-down, each time a hit until I go down,
but is it the last?
I opened one giant door, far-spaced.
Can the ex-husband find that best fucking place?
Airplane to publish beat.
Think to their conversation. Bitch it about.
Snow feeds the heat between my might.

It's on creepy. I'd take being over this Twitter doctor, son.
Who's going venturing?

To Tweet or Not to Tweet

Is it even a question? Everyone likes to "tweet" on Twitter, but the New York Times refuses to "tweet." Or at least, they refuse to use the word. I will admit, the word "tweet" is cute but I'm not really sure of its usage. I don't understand why it is "tweeting" and not "twittering" for example. But maybe it is just a linguistic preference of sorts, like "spat" as a past-tense version of "spit." (Instead of "spitted").

But the Times likes to be archaic and old fashioned in its language usage. The editors consider "tweet" or be slang or coloquial language apparantly, not suitable for their elitist readers. Instead, they use heavy, loaded down phrases, such as "posted on Twitter" or "wrote a message."

If we must be more verbose, what is the point? More concise language, using good word choices, makes reading easier for all of us. We don't need all that wordy jargon and extra syllables. Come on now, we don't even take the time to cook at home anymore, much less actually read the newspaper.