reply to post by
Deflecting what? I've addressed and, as far as I'm concerned, argued quite concisely why I think text speak is valid, and why I think the posters
criticisms of it aren't. If you want to pick up one small remark, and pretend that I'm disregarding the importance of his points, despite the fact I
addressed his points in detail, then that's on you.
Who is disregarding who? From where I'm sat you've just disregarded 98% of what I've said, opting instead to call into question my character and
dirty my posts. I have no idea why.
Me and Grifter were having a reasonable discussion and you come flying in out of nowhere putting nonsense accusations to me.
Sorry, really didn't mean you to take that much offense at what I replied. Certainly, I have no knowledge of your character with which to "call it
into question." Nothing I said reflected on your character. As for dirtying your posts, I wasn't intending that, either. I simply alluded to the
snob comment about English and texting and its own language. I have used no such perjorative, nor word in speaking to your posts, or certainly, about
you, personally. And no, I didn't come flying in out of nowhere. I've been posting on this thread early on, just as you have. Apologies to you,
if you perceive me as attacking you personally, as I intend nothing of the sort.
As for your concise arguments about text speak, I don't really disagree here. But in relation to the OP, I found the subject far broader than text
speak, or even texting. My dissemination of the OP was a discussion of the disappearance of printed, written material, how that may relate to
literacy and what may be behind a "goal," of this happening. I took the references to texting, really, as an example, not really as the main point.
If I am inaccurate, I apologize, once again.
I went back and read every one of your posts before continuing in this reply to you, so as not to dismiss 98% of what you replied to the OP. I saw
that you asserted the cost of books to be the problem with reading them. Actually, they can be had used for a pittance. You referenced the Kindle.
Did you know that you cannot easily page back to review what you've already read, once past it? And, of course, you are totally dependent upon the
upload of material....if pages are skipped, information left out, again you are at a disadvantage you would not be with the material physically in
Next, I see you mention literacy levels being at an all time high. All this means is that more people can read. It does not mean that they do.
At this point, the texting discussion began in earnest.
Again, I have no problem, per se, with either texting or the abbreviated language. My point about it is larger. My point about this whole issue is
larger. And I highlighted the snob thing simply because if someone were reading this who texted a lot and identified more with their cellphone than a
book and felt defensive, they might totally shut off the larger point of what others were saying here about language, intellect, thought, reading, and
why there may be a very real endeavor to keep us "dumbed down," unattentive, not knowledgeable, and therefore, shut the whole thing down in their
own thought processes with the thought these folks are just intellectual snobs.
Or they just dislike technology. And then someone like that might miss the bigger point of how there might be a whole movement (some call TPTB)
wishing to stop the potential of their mind.