[RickyMaveety]

Yes, I have read your posts. To quote you:

"When you text phonetically, you're not making up a new word. You're just being lazy with your spelling." ... "If you're using an already-existing word in the English (or any other) language, you have to use conventional English rules to spell that word as it is properly spelled."

Further, you said "What I more resent is them not keeping their language in context, and allowing it to spew all over conventional speech, where it makes no sense and doesn't belong. (There are certain things that teke (sic) longer to type in text "language" than in English.)"

My comment to your first post is that it assumes that everyone who texts phonetically is "lazy" and that those of us who do so "have to use" conventional English.

I find that assumption offensive. I did from the first time I read it, and I still do now. That was your first post in this thread, by the way. In addition, are you the one that decided what people "have" to do??

I would also love to hear about those certain things that take longer to text "language" than in English. Teke was your own goof, but I'll assume you meant to say "take."

Your next post was to say that "The reason that "cul8r" isn't a sentence, or even a word, is because it's just a phoneticization of English (which is a language) used as shorthand. Further, the reason that the first person to use it should, if there was a just God in the universe, rot in Hell for all eternity, world without end, amen."

My comment on this is that "IOU" is nothing but a phoneticization of English used as shorthand. And, your rot in hell statement is again, rather offensive, at least to the person who first coined "cul8tr," and, who was no worse an offender than the creator of IOU.

Then you stated that "thru" .... "has to do with the general, and growing, illiteracy of the American public."

My comment on that statement is that since the use of "thru" was started by The Chicago Tribune, tell me how that is supposed to be symbolic of a decline in literacy??

And, then there was that real pip .... "I obviously understand a lot more about the English language, and language in general, than you do. Apparently you weren't able to absorb your mother's knowledge by osmosis."

I still doubt that one. I really do.

I also loved this one: "Writing coherently involves both being able to communicate your ideas and the ability to understand your audience and to adjust your writing accordingly."

My comment .... where did that idea go about: "If you're using an already-existing word in the English (or any other) language, you have to use conventional English rules to spell that word as it is properly spelled."

That does not sound like someone who believes it is necessary to adjust writing for the audience. What if you audience is a group of texters and your medium is a cell phone?? Are we allowed to adjust then, or are we supposed to stick to conventional English rules?

Then there was: "You're assuming that everything in the dictionary is meant to be a "word." That's a false assumption. There are numerous examples in dictionaries that are not words, but interjections ("ooh, "ugh", "gosh", etc.)"

As Dylrob correctly noted, those interjections are all "words."

At some point you stated: "The point is that if you write "c", you not only destroy spelling of the word, but by destroying the spelling, you destroy the meaning of the word."

However, you then stated that "SOS" and "IOU" were benign because they have specific, explicit meanings.

That is only true in context. SOS or IOU could also be someone's initials. LOL has a specific, explicit meaning in context. CYA has a specific meaning in context. All words have to be considered in proper context.

Which makes me wonder if you ever actually read anything you write. So much of it is contradictory, or poorly phrased, and sometimes simply wrong. And, then there are the offensive bits that just happened to come up in your very first post in this thread.

You were saying something about not entering the thread to be offensive? Would you like to reconsider that statement?

Probably not. I'm sure you wrote it because you actually did intend to be offensive, otherwise, why write it?

Oh, and no, I don't think "Library Sciences" has anything whatsoever to do with science. In fact, I believe that is a very unfortunate choice of words to describe that major. Unless you library scientists are now conducting important library experiments in your library laboratories.