shd txtspk b ok on frm

[Bill W]

4 rgby psts?

Ur thts?

[bluntiger]

No, not under any circumstances.

[Phil B]

Yes.

If I can understand it, (sadly, not always, but then I don't use it myself) then I am happy with it.

Why stop at banning txtspk? Far more annoying are those people who can't spell, and can't construct a sentence - let's ban them as well at the same time.

However as I tolerate these people, I also tolerate the txtspkers (have I invented a word?). My tolerance is waning, though, against those who seek to control or marginalise members of society by suggesting that conformity is essential to proper conduct. It is not - it is good behaviour that counts.

So txtspkers carry on - do your stuff.

[GS]

I used to get worked up about the laziness of txtspk, but now I don't care. So he goes 'whatever'. It's not a new thing, remember Brando in the Wild Ones?
'We're rebelling.'
'What against?'
'What have you got?'

If nothing else txtspk is warning sign that the contents of the post are probably written without any thought or care and as such aren't worth reading. In the heat of a rapid exchange on the forum keyboard errors creep in and spelling can take a back seat but when I have to spend ages trying to figure out what the author meant by the jumble of words in front of me I tend to develop the attention span of a goldfish and move on.

If you want to be taken seriously take the language seriously. Old f@rts rule!!

[Rizzo]

The only reason anyone gets banned from here is for being a spammer, a troll or a persistent breaker of rules who has had warnings about it.

I personally think many people don't see a difference between text speak and internet messageboard abbreviations like IMO, BTW and so on. I would suggest that in the main users try to avoid using text speak, but I know of several dyslexic users of this forum who find they have to keep telling other users that their wrong spelling or grammar is not down to laziness or stupidity and that they have to do this is wrong. I do feel though that using textspeak for posts will result generally in your post either being passed over, or the content ignored because people either can't or won't read and understand it.

No, I don't think textspeak should be allowed to be used as an alternative to writing out something in full, whether using correct spelling and grammar or not. It's a fine line between odd words in text speak and entire posts in it, which makes for use of English and grammatical argument and not the lively rugby debate we usually have on this forum.

[kevf]

we are supposed to be a tolerant society....

whilst it may not be your bag it is going to be used... i don't use it even on mobiles as i find it quicker use predictive texting...

after all are they doing you harm...???? apart from seemingly getting your blood pressure up...

so whilst i choose not to use it does not bother me someone else using it... if i can't work out what they are trying to say i ignore it.... my choice

i agree with Phil... we have football fans assuming we are all stuck up people who look down on them sadly all too often that is the case on here... if someone misuses a word or spells it incorrectly they are pounced on no matter what the subject of discussion is about... i wish people were more tolerant we didn't all have university education or excel at correct grammar or spelling but would it be good if we were all the same.... please be more tolerant of people

[Johnnyg]

I personally have the ability to understand text speak and find it much less offensive than drunk driving. DDBill is just trying to be a wind up merchant as usual, and to put people off posting.

[Crumby]

I have got a problem with it - cos i don't bother trying to read it.

[dailywaffle]

Whilst no great lover of text-speak, is there any philosophical difference between that and forum-speak?
IMO (and variations thereof), IIRC, AFAIK and HTH are common currency on many forums and draw much less flack. I use them, and will continue to do so as they are very convenient acronyms. Within the context of an otherwise reasonably well written sentence I believe these are acceptable, but maybe some disagree?

[westy154]

Try not to use it, don't much like seeing it, but I use the forum abbreviations and I can normally read txt speak when it is written.

It's a struggle when an entire paragraph is written shorthand, but I don't discount a post just because someone wrote ur instead of you're, your or you are. Sure it may be lazy or cutting corners but lots of things all of us do are, IMO*; it doesn't mean the poster is stupid or ignorant, just a bit lazy....


*Did you see what I did there?

[salcombe bob]

kp th fth bill

[fleabane]

Surely the point is that not everyone finds it easy to understand text-speak.

If you want to be read, spell it out in full, and only use common abbreviations, e.g. IMHO

(Anyone seen the missing vowels anywhere? Are they hiding with with some of our players?)

[Tigerbeat]

Not everyone understands text speak and this is a public forum. Full spelling of words should be used to make it easier for users to read and understand.

If you have got a point to make, you are more likely to get a response if it written in full words. What is happening to written English

I personally do not like the text speak but beleive that there is a time and place for it, but not on a public forum.

[maskedsquid]

There is only one place suitable for text speak and that is in a text message on a mobile phone. The only reason it is acceptable there is because of the limited number of characters available.

We have 60,000 characters available for each post on this forum, so there is simply no need.

Plus, using it when you are trying to make a valid point just makes you look slightly stupid.