I just came across this opinion blogpost telling that to conduct a long and fierce discussion or debate on the Twitter pages is not so ideal :
1 : In a Twitter feed , the poster is limited to 140 characters for expressing his/hers point of view
2 : If you want to elaborate your standpoint with more than 140 characters , you will have to use someting like Twitlonger http://twitlonger.com for posting
3 : If people answer to a person in particular in the main Twitter thread , you will have to go to and open those conversations situated on this side Twitter thread , and thus causing you to leave the main Twitter thread of the discussion
Here is the opinion piece written by Ann FINKBEINER :
And now you know where this is going: I clicked from arguer to arguer, Twitter page to Twitter page, and on each page found different parts of the argument and even more arguers on which to click, leading to even more parts of the argument.
So you can’t get a coherent argument on Twitter. And the problem isn’t the 140 characters — @carlzimmer even posted a Twitlonger – but the nonlinear, illogical structure of Twitter. It branches and branches again; people dart in from all directions, tweet at somebody or other, and dart out again. Trying to follow an argument on Twitter is like trying to see the rules in a night full of fireflies. Twitter is just one more way humans have found to talk past each other — not communicate, not converse, just emit random little flashes.
Read the full and very detailed story on :
In the comments on this blogpost , found this comment from Alberto CAIRO , also worth a reading :
Follow me more closely on Twitter : https://twitter.com/alleswatis
When I find enough time , maybe I will test out some new free themes from WordPress :
Found this online debate :
According to a 2009 poll, around 1% of American adults reported eating no animal products. In 2011 that number rose to 2.5%–more than double, but still dwarfed by the 48% who reported eating meat, fish or poultry at all of their meals. In this country, most of us are blessed with an abundance of food and food choices. So taking into account our health, the environment and ethical concerns, which diet is best? Are we or aren’t we meant to be carnivores?
Sofar as today , this debate is followed by some 230 comments . A comment that I liked was that posted by Robert GRILLO from http://freefromharm.org :
The answer is no. Humans are absolutely not carnivores and have no biological need to consume animal products of any kind, contrary to popular belief and myth. In 2009, the American Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics, the U.S.’s oldest, largest and foremost authority on diet and nutrition, also recognized that humans have no inherent biological or nutritional need for animals products: “It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.”
While a well-balanced vegan diet can easily provide all of the nutrients we need to thrive, that doesn’t mean that all vegans are healthy. Just as people who eat meat, dairy and eggs often suffer from nutrient deficiencies, a poorly planned or junk-food vegan diet can also fail to meet nutritional needs, leading to health problems. Total raw food diets and diets composed of only very-low-fat foods can also make it harder for some people to get all the necessary nutrients. But with the rare exception of someone who suffers from multiple serious plant-food allergies, science now recognizes that a healthy vegan diet is a safe option for everyone.
With the biological and nutritional issues addressed, the only question that remains is an ethical one: If we can live healthy lives without harming anyone, then why wouldn’t we? Why would we instead choose to contribute to the industries that force billions of animals to suffer every year and doom them to a violent slaughterhouse end in their infant or adolescent age? If might does not make right, then right does not make a carnivore.
If you like diet wars and fireworks , see the comments on a mirror post of a mixed and totally uncensored forum :