'This Twitter thing is annoying as hell' -- Gregg Doyel at 6:01 p.m.

Good morning.
-- Tweet from Lance Armstrong at 5:57 a.m.

And we're off. But where are we headed? And why?

Twitter, the instantaneous social network that sends "tweets" directly to a subscriber's e-mail address or cell phone, is the new narcissism. For the sender, I mean. To wake up before 6 a.m. on a typical day, as Armstrong did last week, and send a faceless, voiceless good morning to your "audience" ... that's the height of narcissism. You really must be self-centered to believe thousands of people are waiting to know you're awake. But then, if you're Lance Armstrong, you're right. Thousands of people really are waiting. As of late last week, his Twitter account had more than 692,000 followers.

The Patriots provided Twitter updates during this weekend's NFL Draft. (AP)

For the receiver, Twitter is something even worse than narcissism. It's voyeurism. And it's pathetic. You can't be Lance Armstrong, you can't be his friend, but you can receive his tweets. So you do. Congratulations.

Watching Fleche Wallone LIVE on www.steephill.tv
-- Tweet from Lance Armstrong at 6:59 a.m.

So there's your tweet from your sweet, Lance Armstrong. He's watching the Belgium cycling race La Fleche Wallone. Does receiving that information make you feel like you're part of something? And if so, what? And why?

Am I sounding negative? Even petty? Sue me. Everybody has a limit, and I've reached mine with Twitter, which isn't just the world's fastest-growing social networking tool. It's a religion, filling the hole in regular people's regular lives. Twitter is society's new church. It's a personal savior. Twitter Christ.

Eating a late breakfast in the marina, Michael Buble's "Home" playing.
-- Tweet from Barry Zito at 12:50 p.m.

Seriously. Twitter? What is wrong with us?

Don't look at me like that. I'm not the neighborhood crank, kicking you kids off my lawn. I've embraced the blogging revolution, bookmarking multiple sites and visiting them every day. More than 20 million Americans write a blog, many of them for audiences approaching zero. Less than 9 percent of the blogging public makes any money at all, and only 2 out of every 100 bloggers support themselves fully. But still 20 million people do it. And I get that. It's personal expression. It's art. Doesn't matter whether it's done well or not. Art is art. So I get blogging.

Facebook and MySpace? I don't get that, unless it's for dating purposes. Horniness, I understand. The need to tell people what you're doing at various junctures of the day? And to read what other people are doing? Gregg is folding clothes ... I don't understand. And I never will. My life shouldn't be that interesting to you, and your life damn sure isn't that interesting to me. Even so, more than 200 million people are on those social networking giants, including several of my family members. It's the impossibly impersonal Internet version of the corporate Christmas card, but OK. Fine. Not a peep from me.

But now I'm peeping. Because you're tweeting.

John Calipari is on Twitter. Tom Crean tweets. They do it as a recruiting tool and to win over impatient fan bases, so it makes sense.

But Shaquille O'Neal on Twitter? Makes no sense at all. Rampant egotism is the only explanation for Shaq or Britney Spears, who can't step foot in public without being gawked at, sharing their privacy on Twitter.

Milwaukee forward Charlie Villanueva famously sent a tweet from the Bucks locker room at halftime of a game last month against Boston: In da locker room, snuck to post my twitt. We're playing the Celtics, tie ball game at da half. Coach wants more toughness. I gotta step up.

Da Bucks' coach, Scott Skiles, didn't like that, so Villanueva stopped da tweeting during games. Now he sends out da tweets like this one:

It's pretty cloudy outside, staying home all day.
-- Tweet from Charlie Villanueva at 11:32 a.m.

They're writing because you're reading. And the truth is, they're probably not even writing. Not all of them. No way. College football coaches typically don't vote in the official Top 25 coaches poll, leaving that task to an administrative assistant, so do you really believe Pete Carroll is doing all of that inane tweeting on his Twitter account? Please. If you're one of his 12,000-plus followers, odds are good that your cyber-voyeurism is a failure. You might as well look up a mannequin's skirt.

Song of the day! Prince! "i would die for you".
-- Tweet from Pete Carroll at 11:53 a.m.

For celebrities, Twitter is a gigantic ego stroke. It's a game of narcissist strip poker, and you're the thong. Ashton Kutcher decided he should be able to get 1 million followers before CNN, so he put that challenge out there. In the meantime, idiot swimmer Michael Phelps -- with just several hundred followers -- joined the game.

Poll Do you tweet? 16% Yes   62% No   21% What the hell is Twitter   Total Votes: 592

Good morning Twitter! Less than 1000 (followers) to 100k! Wow. Almost there, let's try and make it happen today!
-- Tweet from Michael Phelps at 7:15 a.m.

Didn't happen. Kutcher beat Phelps, and CNN, to 1 million. And it's no wonder. Look at the sort of valuable bulletins you get if you follow Kutcher:

Hanging on the fox lot.
-- Tweet from Ashton Kutcher at 11:29 a.m.

Kutcher takes his Twittering seriously, tweeting several times a day, but Paul Pierce of the Celtics isn't nearly as dedicated. Pierce has left his 113,710 followers in the dark since the playoffs started, denying the world the mangled self-absorption of a typical Tweet:

Updating my ipod rite now downloading music from datpiff.com love playing my music in the range rover on the way to practice.
-- Tweet from Paul Pierce at 7:56 a.m.

CBSSports.com has a Twitter site. Mike Freeman has one. Oprah started one last week, and within eight hours she had more than 165,000 followers. Today she's closing in on half a million.

This thing isn't a fad. It's a carcinogen, and we're addicted.

We're idiots. You know that?