On Twitter, what's fascinating isn't merely what people write. I try to picture where they were and what they were wearing as they were tweeting.
So I am imagining Rupert Murdoch on Sunday night, slurping on a glass of fine, golden beer, seated in a red velvet smoking jacket.
Clutching his phone, filled with the kind of irritating news a boss often receives, he cast his frustrations to the wind. Or, rather to the Twitterati.
For Sunday night, News Corp.'s heart and soul offered: "'Please expose Eric Schmidt, Google' etc. Just wait!"
There is so little here, and yet so much. Firstly, what secrets can possibly be hidden by the always open government of Google? What dark insinuations are being proposed here?
Is it merely to do with the alleged theft of all the world's news? Or might there be something even more menacing and filled with acronyms such as NSA, LSD, or LOL?
And why single out Executive Chairman Schmidt? Why not Google's true self-driving force, Larry Page? Is there something of a personal nature that Murdoch would like exposed?
And why is the first part of the tweet in quotation marks? Is this a suggestion that a lissom lovely was sprawled beside him and whispering such sweet everythings in his ear?
Finally, the promise of "Just wait!"
Is this an oath of imminent revenge? Is this based on a knowledge that something deeply disturbing is about to be discovered, as soon as everyone has returned from celebrating the discovery of America?
I do not know, but I am rapt.
Murdoch, though, seems suddenly diffident. Perhaps not realizing that you can delete tweets if they are, say silly, drunken, or libelous, his follow-up tweet read: "Oops! Better ignore last tweet."
Does that mean we should ignore it? Or that he merely should?
I imagine that after he sent that tweet, he felt fair balance of mind and body had been restored. I can see him leaning back on his chaise-longue, breathing deeply, and pouring himself a sharp snifter.
He has only offered one tweet since: "Paul Ryan emerging as real leader. Responsible, consistent, and on top of big issues."
Perhaps he might be the one to "expose" Google then?