http://idiosyncratic-routine.disqus.com/enMon, 14 Jul 2008 14:08:37 -0000http://idiosyncratic-routine.com/post/39786917#comment-888902<p>Hmmm ok, I'll take the precedent on twittergasm, but really, they've misappropriated the linguistic structure there. A twittergasm should be CAUSED by twitter, not just reported on it. I mean, what they're talking about should be called tweetgasm or something! I couldn't think of anything with a better ring to it, but I'm sure someone can. Besides - who the hell is tweeting that kind of information? They should be twhacked upside the twead.</p>amberellaMon, 14 Jul 2008 14:08:37 -0000http://idiosyncratic-routine.com/post/39786917#comment-888409<p>I agree with your def of twitterbaiting, and I try to avoid it. But I am afraid that twittergasms have already been established as real orgasms that you indicate on your twitter profile by typing JOSW and ICSW, see <a href="http://fleshbot.com/389748/twittergasms-the-real-san-francisco-treat" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://fleshbot.com/389748/twittergasms-the-real-san-francisco-treat">http://fleshbot.com/389748/...</a></p> Stacie AdamsMon, 14 Jul 2008 13:16:59 -0000