StarGateWars Forums

http://borderzine.com/2009/10/negative- ... messaging/

It's just an article, but it lists some of the risks caused by texting. Driving risks, communication changes, lack of focus in class...
Sure one could argue about the statistics and fact it happens for some individuals but not others, but there's still the fact that even if texting didn't have effects on people's quality of writing, it is obvious texting is a source of trouble for attention in school. I remember an issue in Paris when some teens (this is for real) did write to the director of the high school, to have their english teacher fired because she asked them to stop texting during her courses!!!
I couldn't find you a translation to the article though. That can tell how much of an addiction to can be for some people, and an attention grabber as well.

I haven't insulted you Jack, I've just said that you talk a lot of crap. It's an opinion.

But here's something that pretty much summed it up for me to the point where I stopped taking any interest in your posts.

Abbreviations have been around for forever. In the other hand your wrong, txting improves spelling as well as communication skills.

You then went on to say in response to Jim's further post...

Do you have anything other than poorly supported anecdotal evidence to back your claims?

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to figure out what I'm getting at.

Maybe if you'd pull your fingers out of your ears you'd see that I've included sources to back my claims.

You're still not refuting my arguments. Simply dismissing them as absurd, insulting them by calling them crap, and not providing any supporting evidence. Once again, Pops is the only one attempting to support his claims with intelligent arguments, supporting them with outside sources. Once again, he has yet to resort to either insulting my arguments or simply dismissing them outright.

Yes, I asked Pops to provide more than just his experience to support his claims. He did so.

Legendary Apophis wrote:http://borderzine.com/2009/10/negative-aspects-of-text-messaging/

It's just an article, but it lists some of the risks caused by texting. Driving risks, communication changes, lack of focus in class...
Sure one could argue about the statistics and fact it happens for some individuals but not others, but there's still the fact that even if texting didn't have effects on people's quality of writing, it is obvious texting is a source of trouble for attention in school. I remember an issue in Paris when some teens (this is for real) did write to the director of the high school, to have their english teacher fired because she asked them to stop texting during her courses!!!
I couldn't find you a translation to the article though. That can tell how much of an addiction to can be for some people, and an attention grabber as well.

While yes, I certainly do agree that texting is a massive driving risk. However whether one is using txt speak has no no effect on the dangerous of texting and driving. Changes in communication styles are not exclusively negative, they are merely a sign that a language is evolving, for better or worse. Language evolves all the time. Yes texting in class is a distraction. However texting is one of the least distracting way to communicate in class. Let's face it, kids are not going to stop talking in class, whether or they are in grade school or college/university. Moreover, the distraction in class is going to be there whether the student uses txt speak or not. Now I'm not saying that kids should be allowed or encouraged to text in class. What I'm saying is that all the doom and gloom is misguided.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 060308.php

[BoT] Jack wrote:They are acronyms and initializations spoken aloud. OMG is an initialization, as well as TV. They are no different except that most/all of you grew up hearing people call a television a TV and so now you find that it is acceptable whereas people are only just now using the initialization of oh my god. There is no difference.

It is hypocritical to say that one abbreviation is okay but a similar abbreviation is not.

If it is not okay to take a group of words and abbreviate them today, then it was not okay X amount of years ago.

You lot insult me, yet Pops is the only one that has even attempted to put forth a ration and intelligent counter argument, no matter how flawed. He also hasn't slung any insults. Correlation?

Now, do you lot care to have an intelligent conversation by attempting to back up your claims and opinions with facts backed by credible sources or at least intelligent arguments, or are you going to continue throwing insults and failing to support any of your claims?

Except for ASAP and STAT all of the acronymns and abbreviations* we use are nouns. That is what makes the difference, in my mind, and ASAP and STAT are acceptable to me because they are used in military code (that's what happens when raised by a Marine).

*that I can think of

Psyko wrote:and ASAP and STAT are acceptable to me because they are used in military code (that's what happens when raised by a Marine).

"It's okay because my daddy says so" that is precisely what that boils down to. No offense. So now, only acronyms your father deems acceptable are proper?

3D, CAT, IP, ISP, SSD, HD, HDD

[BoT] Jack wrote:

Psyko wrote:and ASAP and STAT are acceptable to me because they are used in military code (that's what happens when raised by a Marine).

"It's okay because my daddy says so" that is precisely what that boils down to. No offense. So now, only acronyms your father deems acceptable are proper?

3D, CAT, IP, ISP, SSD, HD, HDD

You misunderstand. I am not saying that they are acceptable because "my daddy says so" but because I have heard them, literally, all my life so they seem like everday words to me.

I am not saying that you are wrong in what you have argued, because I can see your perspective, and I don't necessarily disagree with it. However, there are certain terms that I wish we could do away with, like someone saying "Be are be" when they leave for the restroom. That comes with every language, though; there will always be words that should probably be removed from use (certain slurs for instance - though, before you blow that out of proportion, I am not saying BRB is anything close to being a slur).

I am not saying these particular terms should be banned. I simply do not like them. Currently, such sayings come with the impression that one is dimwitted or unintelligent, much like the southern accent can come across to those from northern states in the US (and I know there are similar impressions in other countries in regards to certain dialects). This is most definitely not an accurate perception, but it is one that exists for the time being. I am sure in 50 years it will be more than acceptable to tell our grandkids "OMG, BRB, gotta change my diaper." Times change and so does our language, and old fogies who hate change don't have to like it when it happens.

I thought this thread would go 1 and half, 2 pages at most over about 4 weeks, at best lol

@ Jack,

I see your point about older acronyms and abbreviations being acceptable, actually mentioned a couple of them in my first post

BUT

The whole point of acronyms and abbreviations is to shorten words and sayings for easier use

If you try saying 'O M G' then try saying 'Oh My God', they actually take about the same time to say. If you say 'L O L' then clearly you are not laughing because you are talking, so you would actually come across as a sarcastic git.

I think the dislike of these when spoken is because they are unnecessary and pointless.

I think most people don't laugh when replying with LOL, even online. Over the years it has taken on a new connotation. In that regard, LOL would be appropriate where laughing out loud would not.

Like a lot of things, OMG started out largely as a sarcastic expression, meant to be ironic our something. But more recently out seems to have taken on a more serious tone. It's just evolution of language. When you look at it solely as an abbreviation, it doesn't make much sense. But I don't see it that way, it seems to be just another way of saying oh my god. And honestly, English is filled with words that are little more than alternatives for other words.

Personally I view the disdain of txt as baseless intolerance brought about by ignorance and is hypocritical considering the history of the English language.

That said, I dislike the use of txt in speech, but to each their own. I shan't condemn them based on my personal tastes, nor shall I judge them for it's use. Once again, it is intolerance. I think Psyko made a great comparison by comparing the bigotry of those from the north to the intolerance of txt speak.

Yes, it is bigotry to claim someone stupid solely because of their accent. It is no better than saying John must be an idiot because he is black.

[BoT] Jack wrote:I think most people don't laugh when replying with LOL, even online. Over the years it has taken on a new connotation. In that regard, LOL would be appropriate where laughing out loud would not.

Like a lot of things, OMG started out largely as a sarcastic expression, meant to be ironic our something. But more recently out seems to have taken on a more serious tone. It's just evolution of language. When you look at it solely as an abbreviation, it doesn't make much sense. But I don't see it that way, it seems to be just another way of saying oh my god. And honestly, English is filled with words that are little more than alternatives for other words.

Personally I view the disdain of txt as baseless intolerance brought about by ignorance and is hypocritical considering the history of the English language.

That said, I dislike the use of txt in speech, but to each their own. I shan't condemn them based on my personal tastes, nor shall I judge them for it's use. Once again, it is intolerance. I think Psyko made a great comparison by comparing the bigotry of those from the north to the intolerance of txt speak.

Yes, it is bigotry to claim someone stupid solely because of their accent. It is no better than saying John must be an idiot because he is black.

'LOL' typed at the end of a comment is usually a way of stating that comment was intended to be humorous, mainly because when typed ( without tone of voice, facial expression etc which you have face to face ) it is easy is mistake a joke for an insult or erroneous statement.

'LOL' as a reply is used to show you got the joke, and while you might not be literally laughing out loud it should at least indicate the joke/comment you replied to was amusing.

'LOL' in spoken word is pointless, if you laughed, smirked, smiled, whatever reaction you have is clear to see.

'OMG' as far as I know has always been used to express shock or disbelief, I dont think it has 'evolved' in any way, just an expression the use of made more commonplace by TV & Movies.


As for accents, yes judging people by them is similar to racism, more like national stereotypes really as the accents indicate place of origin, or places you have lived for long periods of time, but most the uses are not meant to cause offense, more in jest. Im Welsh, do you have any idea how many sheepshagger jokes I heard, I dont take them personal and dont really understand why others do. Some people are just more touchy about these things.

It's the same argument that will continue for centuries.

Why must the Canadians and English always add that extra "u"? And why must Americans constantly remove the "u" from words?

Language evolution. No one will ever agree.