<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Botherer &#187; text message x</title>
	<atom:link href="http://botherer.org/tag/text-message-x/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://botherer.org</link>
	<description>John Walker's Electronic House</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:27:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The Text Message x</title>
		<link>http://botherer.org/2010/01/08/the-text-message-x/</link>
		<comments>http://botherer.org/2010/01/08/the-text-message-x/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:05:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Walker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Rest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[text message x]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://botherer.org/?p=1656</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;m not the world&#8217;s biggest fan of text messaging. To me it&#8217;s a tool. It&#8217;s a way of arranging to meet, or letting someone know you&#8217;ll be late. Or sending a pithy, clever insult. And it&#8217;s brilliant for that. Phoning someone to say something that can be taken care of in a maximum of two [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not the world&#8217;s biggest fan of text messaging. To me it&#8217;s a tool. It&#8217;s a way of arranging to meet, or letting someone know you&#8217;ll be late. Or sending a pithy, clever insult. And it&#8217;s brilliant for that. Phoning someone to say something that can be taken care of in a maximum of two exchanges of 160 characters isn&#8217;t necessary. The text message takes care of it, quickly and efficiently.</p>
<p>However, if your conversation requires more than that, then it&#8217;s a bane. Having to try to orchestrate a complicated dialogue in minimal chunks is infuriating, and even more so because to do it you&#8217;re holding a device capable of telephoning someone. So telephone someone.</p>
<p>Perhaps an even larger issue with the text message is the apparent requirement to reply instantly. I don&#8217;t want to turn into some ghastly confused broadsheet columnist (wait, yes I do, that&#8217;s <em>exactly</em> the job I want &#8211; well, let&#8217;s assume I don&#8217;t want the ghastly part) who complains about how modern technology is driving us apart, because is it bollocks. It&#8217;s uniting us in incredible ways. But I do take issue with the immediacy of communication it&#8217;s engendered. If you need to get hold of me immediately, call me. The loud ringing sound will get my attention, and if I answer you&#8217;ll get my responses right away. If I don&#8217;t answer, you can assume I&#8217;m not able to, or don&#8217;t want to. For some reason we accept that an email may take a few hours to be responded to. But a text message, perhaps because of its relative informality, combined with its arriving on a device that follows us around (which of course is increasingly the case for email too), seems to come with a weight of responsibility. And one that arrives unsolicited. I don&#8217;t like that. While I find myself unable to remember how existence worked when phones were tied to the walls (despite living the first 20 years of my life in such a state &#8211; what did we do when we were going to be late for stuff?), I do remember that we weren&#8217;t commanded to instantly reply to everyone.</p>
<p><span id="more-1656"></span></p>
<p>(Aside: I wonder if teenagers still write letters to each other. I was in my prime letter-writing teenage years in 93 to 96, with email not arriving for most of us until 97. If you wanted to let a girl know you fancied her, and clearly speaking to her about it wasn&#8217;t an option, you picked up pen and paper. Is this all done by email now? I presume so. I am one hundred years old.)</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not always going to reply to your text message immediately. Sometimes I might, because I&#8217;m there and free and may as well. But sometimes I&#8217;ll reply later that day when I get around to it. As with an email. Or returning a call. I&#8217;m not willing to let the text obligation rule me. I think that&#8217;s reasonable.</p>
<p>But that&#8217;s not why I gathered us all here this evening. This is to discuss the tyranny and dangers of the Text Message x. Or the Text Message Kiss. I&#8217;ve never put a little &#8216;x&#8217; at the end of my texts to anyone. And I never will.</p>
<p>The x, for anyone unfamiliar with this code, is the kiss. But we all know that, because we&#8217;d XxXxX at the bottom of our letters, wouldn&#8217;t we fellow elderly people? I&#8217;m absolutely sure that for the crazy-in-love 15 year old, the number of xs at the end of a text is as important and love-defining as the number of Xs at the end of a letter. &#8220;He only put three Xs! Why does he hate me?!&#8221; And teenagers are welcome to this, because it&#8217;s beautiful. But for adults there seems to have become this habit of putting an x at the end of every text sent to a friend or loved one.</p>
<p>Now, let me be more than absolutely clear here. I object in no way to receiving a text with an x at the end. I even rather like it. It&#8217;s affectionate, cute. Although most the time I don&#8217;t consciously acknowledge them, as it happens. I read words, consider if I need to reply, move on. But sometimes I&#8217;ll spot it there and it can only be positive. The matter is, I shall never send one. And I suggest you adopt the same rule for reasons of safety.</p>
<p>The first reason is about semiotics. That x, if someone becomes used to it, can become important. And you&#8217;re dealing with a message that&#8217;s likely to be kept to 160 characters, rather than subject the receiver to five minutes of excruciating &#8220;de-deh-de-deh&#8221; noises as it arrives in chunks and painstakingly pieces itself back together. Which means there will come a message where you don&#8217;t have room for that x, no matter how much you bastardise the language down to a series of grunted consonant sounds and vulgar singular vowels. And then the x is missing, left out, gone for some reason. What reason? wonders the receiver. &#8220;Does she hate me now? Did I do something wrong? Should I be reading this entire text as being written in fury?&#8221; &#8220;Does he want to break up with me? Is it over? Should I cry now?&#8221;</p>
<p>The second is habit. A friend of mine told me a fantastic story recently where she sent a text message to her MA supervisor, which she habitually finished with a little x. A little kiss. </p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Hello important MA supervisor. Here is some grown up information for my serious degree. Smah!&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>And then she curled up on the floor and died.</p>
<p>The x, the kiss, is far more trouble than it&#8217;s worth. And it&#8217;s never a problem so long as no precedent is set. If there&#8217;s no expectation of that single letter, no one&#8217;s going to give a toss if it&#8217;s absent at the end of a message about remembering to pick up milk on the way home. But once it&#8217;s been established, it being missing is suddenly an issue. Which is silly. So I&#8217;ll not. I hope you don&#8217;t mind. x</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://botherer.org/2010/01/08/the-text-message-x/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

