Big Twother is watching you

...so said Tamsen McMahon on April 7th.
Funny as it is, there's a typo in the tweet - did or can you spot it? I did, and couldn't resist:

It's "its" and not "it's" > RT @tamadear: (...) your impression of a company and it's representatives. To wit, typos on presentation slides

Caught in the act in public there of pointing the finger to others and immediately getting a finger pointed back, how would the reaction be? Denial, anger, cover-up, fun, laughter?

Many possibilities to handle this of course. Let's start with the more unlucky options:

1. Delete tweet, ignore me, hope no one else spotted it or mine
2. Delete tweet, say whoopsey to me in the hope I'll not pay attention to it anymore
3. Delete tweet and send out correct one, ignore me
4. Delete tweet and send out correct one, whoopsey me...

And the list is endless there really. So, what did Tamsen do?
Tamsen took it serious but lightly - then again my tweet was completely neutral. Here's what happened (read from bottom to top, click the picture to enlarge):

Fabulous response there: admitting the mistake, telling how to correct it, openly tweeting to everyone in her timeline about the typo-tweet and reposting it.
Masterly managed. Open, truthful, clean, honest, and fun. I already admired Tamsen to a good degree but this made her even bigger in my eyes (and I'm sure in others' as well)

Not everyone deals with criticism this well - then again in my eyes this is a perfect 10 so it can only get worse, can't it?
Yes, it can

I have expanded my Twuniverse services with word analysis next to tweep analysis: if you check out a conversation or hahstag, you can now see who's doing the most tweeting, and what kind of tweets that are. For instance, here is the make-up of the last 500 tweets right now:

8,628 total words, of which 1,615 are unique. 25 most used words: #social2011 (483 = 5.6%); you (224 = 2.6%); @isaiahmustafa (153 = 1.8%); if (130 = 1.5%); now (108 = 1.3%); want (104 = 1.2%); @nbcsnl (103 = 1.2%); tweet (98 = 1.1%); @radian6 (97 = 1.1%); host (93 = 1.1%); out (71 = 0.8%); this (67 = 0.8%); @radian6: (61 = 0.7%); great (60 = 0.7%); check (56 = 0.6%); social (52 = 0.6%); http://bit.ly/fj5jLp (50 = 0.6%); conference (44 = 0.5%); thank (43 = 0.5%); video: (43 = 0.5%); ;) (41 = 0.5%); rt) (41 = 0.5%); (pls (41 = 0.5%); @pistachio: (40 = 0.5%); will (39 = 0.5%); totalling 2342 (27%)

Clearly, the conference is over and these are mere chatter tweets thanking everyone for it, and tweeting about the next one. You would expect everyone to RT everyone else, and there's an RT percentage of 51% indeed.
However, I noticed a similarly high percentage of ReTweets yesterday when the conference was still ongoing, and made a remark about that:

44% of the last 1500 #social2011 tweets are RT's. With 635 participants and 11% tweeted by the top-10, that's way too many

I got a reaction from someone that was somewhat awkward:

@MartijnLinssen isn't that the point as RTs extend audience reach outside the room from someone outside the room at another event #social11

What followed was a conversation, and here it is (read from bottom to top, click the picture to enlarge):

What a fruitless, evasive, boring conversation that is. I haven't checked out John's bio but I suspect it has either the word evangelist or marketing in it, or at least that he's a socbiz or e2.0 fan - not that they are all wrong but the exception is slowly becoming the rule there.
How can you persist in giving such difficult evasive answers to simple questions? I can only assume one possible answer to that question:

He is a card-carrying member of the TWOC - the Twitter Echo Chamber.
I hope you are not...