Txt spk not allowed

AckwelFoley · 17-04-2009 09:27PM

Mrmoe wrote: »

People need to get their heads out of their asses. Text speak is fine if used in the proper forum. People who believe that we should stick rigidly to the Queens English are a bit too anal retentive for my liking.

Terry is alot of things.

Anally retentive is not one of them

Abi · 17-04-2009 09:28PM

Ive said 'nah' because they text that way regardless.

On the flip side, I hate text speak. And Im glad it has no place here. Its an eye sore.

dr.bollocko · 17-04-2009 09:29PM

Dudess wrote: »

txtspk is fkn dedlee ur all jst old and teachers petz

Young lady I know you might be new around these parts but I feel I have to inform you that the charter is strongly contra-indicative of such behaviour.

After Hours Charter wrote:

- Using txtspk n ur psts is cnsdrd been rlly stpd cuz u hv qwert kbd n ur pc so xpct 2 b wrnd. Please don't do this, this is not a bannable offence but repeat offenders might be "asked" to take a break from posting.

We · 17-04-2009 09:40PM

I reckon that boards is what contributed the most to my level of written English. The only other place I actually write being school.. In addition, you really try and write well when you get in a bit of a flamewar with somebody here

red-demon · 17-04-2009 09:41PM

wh47 480u7 h4x0r 5p33k?

Aodan83 · 17-04-2009 09:58PM

red-demon wrote: »

wh47 480u7 h4x0r 5p33k?

wtf?

Son Of Anarchy · 17-04-2009 10:00PM

It is just a modern shorthand derived from the limited space in old phones when it came to sending a text message It should never be used unless it has to be but never when you have the full use of a keyboard and the space to type.

Calling it text speak is as moronic as the people who use it when they shouldn't.

red-demon · 17-04-2009 10:04PM

Aodan83 wrote: »

wtf?

17'5 h4x0r 5p34k!

http://www.google.com/intl/xx-hacker/

Aodan83 · 17-04-2009 10:11PM

red-demon wrote: »

17'5 h4x0r 5p34k!

http://www.google.com/intl/xx-hacker/

Ah yes, h4x0r 5p34k. Should have known.

Biggins · 17-04-2009 10:15PM

red-demon wrote: »

wh47 480u7 h4x0r 5p33k?

red-demon wrote: »

17'5 h4x0r 5p34k!

http://www.google.com/intl/xx-hacker/

Aodan83 wrote: »

Ah yes, h4x0r 5p34k. Should have known.

So now this thread is devolving, spewing forth this rubbish?
I must be stupid because I still can't understand it.

red-demon · 17-04-2009 10:18PM

Biggins wrote: »

So now this thread is spewing forth this rubbish?
I must be stupid because I still can't understand it.

Both are stupid slang languages created from switching mediums.

Aidric · 17-04-2009 10:51PM

Biggins wrote: »

I must be stupid

Clearly.

Dudess · 17-04-2009 11:54PM

I understand people defending textspeak in the context of early mobile phones pre predictive text with a limited character maximum... so that's approximately eight years ago we're talking about. Plus, stuff like "u", "2nite", "r" etc - at least that makes some bit of sense.
But the horsesh1t since, such as "lyk", "skul" (school - yeah, seriously :rolleyes:), "d" for "the", "der" (there) and deleting all nouns - that's not done to save space/time, that's just dumbing down for the sake of dumbing down. It doesn't even make phonetical sense a lot of the time and it's clearly just a case of "Hmmm... how can I make this shorter? I'll look so cool" (so to be fair, it won't be used by anyone over 14... no wait, it IS used by people over 14 - up to about 21 in some cases). Some "walls" of textspeak are so intricate, it actually looks like more time is spent on them in terms of thinking about what way to write things and then finding the letters on the keyboard for them... rather than just writing it in straightforward English.
Useful, comprehensible and time-saving my arse... And the crap about only "old" people stuck in the past being against it. There are teenagers (younger than 18/19) on this forum who write perfectly coherently and I know for a fact I would have considered textspeak absolutely idiotic when I was a teenager.

Insect Overlord · 18-04-2009 12:17AM

Biggins wrote: »

I must be stupid because I still can't understand it.

[Gump]Stupid is as stupid does, Sir.[/Gump]

Dudess wrote: »

Useful, comprehensible and time-saving my arse... And the crap about only "old" people stuck in the past being against it. There are teenagers (younger than 18/19) on this forum who write perfectly coherently and I know for a fact I would have considered textspeak absolutely idiotic when I was a teenager.

+1

I got my first phone when I was 12 and stopped using text-speak within a few weeks, after the novelty wore off. Text-speak is also one of the main reasons why I've stopped using Bebo, but that's another story...

Biggins · 18-04-2009 12:22AM

An File wrote: »

[Gump]Stupid is as stupid does, Sir.[/Gump]

Very true - and those that don't actually speak intelligible common speech only shows the world what type of person they will be more likely to be seen as!
...and then they wonder why they are looked down upon. :rolleyes:

I'm not saying thats right but people are be judged by their actions, words and how they put them to others.
Using text speak as an every day form of communication beyond phones is looked down upon.
There is constant debate about this. The discussions usually brought up yet again by some in order yet again to justify their version of twisted language.

Sorry, but for the rest of us, it just don't wash and is not generally wanted.
Some might not like that idea but thats just the way things are.
They can continue to proverbially bang their heads against a wall in indifference but it will change nothing.

sdanseo · 18-04-2009 12:36AM

Yep, majority rules. No txtspk ever!

Dudess · 18-04-2009 12:46AM

Biggins wrote: »

those that don't actually speak intelligible common speech only shows the world what type of person they will be more likely to be seen as!

Unfortunately though, otherwise intelligent people use textspeak (and leave out commas and full stops :mad:). Can't understand why they'd want to look so stupid.

18-04-2009 01:55AM

Biggins wrote: »

So now this thread is devolving, spewing forth this rubbish?
I must be stupid because I still can't understand it.

Na, you are just old.

18-04-2009 01:57AM

Dudess wrote: »

I understand people defending textspeak in the context of early mobile phones pre predictive text with a limited character maximum... so that's approximately eight years ago we're talking about. Plus, stuff like "u", "2nite", "r" etc - at least that makes some bit of sense.
But the horsesh1t since, such as "lyk", "skul" (school - yeah, seriously :rolleyes:), "d" for "the", "der" (there) and deleting all nouns - that's not done to save space/time, that's just dumbing down for the sake of dumbing down. It doesn't even make phonetical sense a lot of the time and it's clearly just a case of "Hmmm... how can I make this shorter? I'll look so cool" (so to be fair, it won't be used by anyone over 14... no wait, it IS used by people over 14 - up to about 21 in some cases). Some "walls" of textspeak are so intricate, it actually looks like more time is spent on them in terms of thinking about what way to write things and then finding the letters on the keyboard for them... rather than just writing it in straightforward English.
Useful, comprehensible and time-saving my arse... And the crap about only "old" people stuck in the past being against it. There are teenagers (younger than 18/19) on this forum who write perfectly coherently and I know for a fact I would have considered textspeak absolutely idiotic when I was a teenager.

My mom uses Txt Spk.:o

Junki3 · 18-04-2009 02:07AM

Dudess wrote: »

I understand people defending textspeak in the context of early mobile phones pre predictive text with a limited character maximum... so that's approximately eight years ago we're talking about. Plus, stuff like "u", "2nite", "r" etc - at least that makes some bit of sense.
But the horsesh1t since, such as "lyk", "skul" (school - yeah, seriously :rolleyes:), "d" for "the", "der" (there) and deleting all nouns - that's not done to save space/time, that's just dumbing down for the sake of dumbing down. It doesn't even make phonetical sense a lot of the time and it's clearly just a case of "Hmmm... how can I make this shorter? I'll look so cool" (so to be fair, it won't be used by anyone over 14... no wait, it IS used by people over 14 - up to about 21 in some cases). Some "walls" of textspeak are so intricate, it actually looks like more time is spent on them in terms of thinking about what way to write things and then finding the letters on the keyboard for them... rather than just writing it in straightforward English.
Useful, comprehensible and time-saving my arse... And the crap about only "old" people stuck in the past being against it. There are teenagers (younger than 18/19) on this forum who write perfectly coherently and I know for a fact I would have considered textspeak absolutely idiotic when I was a teenager.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Biggins · 18-04-2009 02:12AM

Deleted User wrote: »

My mom uses Txt Spk.:o

LOL Thats partly so she can maybe keep an eye on you and check up on your latest escapades!

18-04-2009 02:15AM

Biggins wrote: »

LOL Thats partly so she can maybe keep an eye on you and check up on your latest escapades!

She thinks she's really deadly(like Dudess).She never even uses the 160 characters.

Holsten · 18-04-2009 02:16AM

Should be an instant 1 week ban for anyone using text speak.

seanybiker · 18-04-2009 02:17AM

have over 2000 posts and about 1600-1700 at least of them are posted from my mobile. I cant understand why people just dont talk properly. Fair enough me grammar isnt the best but I wont resort to text speak even though I use me mobile to post.

Dudess · 18-04-2009 10:49AM

Yeah, my mum and her mates use textspeak - it's cringeworthy.

Deleted User wrote: »

She thinks she's really deadly(like Dudess)

Oh no, I'm against textspeak.

She never even uses the 160 characters.

There are miles more than 160 characters on today's mobile phones.

dr.bollocko · 18-04-2009 11:40AM

That's a damn conclusive poll.

Joey the lips · 18-04-2009 12:21PM

wtf

Txt spk not allowed

Comments