RE: chat speak, protocals and judgements. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

expedio1 -> RE: chat speak, protocals and judgements. (11/24/2007 6:55:15 PM)

Hello, all.  I've been hanging around here, lurking, I suppose, for some time now and haven't felt the urge to post anything on any thread until now.  I have a comment and, more importantly, a related question.

First, I completely agree with MRandme that it's all a matter of choosing the right tool for the job.  For Me, chatspeak is great on an instant messenger or a text message, acceptable on a message board or possibly an email, and almost completely unacceptable elsewhere unless it's being used for some specific effect.  To each his own, naturally, but this is how it makes Me feel.

Now the question.  One place where I do NOT accept chatspeak is when a sub is addressing Me, no matter what the format, unless it's an emergency of some kind (texting "hse on fr! com hm!!" for example [;)] ).  For Me it feels as if they're too lazy to bother to type or write a few extra characters, and I find that disrespectful.  As you can see, I do capitalize My pronouns but I don't require subs to do that until they're collared (and I'm currently between subs, so that's no one right now).  But I do require that they not address Me as "u" and express their understanding of My statements by saying "o i c".  Ugh!

So My question is: Am I the only One who feels this way?  I'm sure there are Dom/mes who don't mind it (evidently including the OP), and that's totally cool.  But are there any Others who do?  I've been curious about this for some time and I look forward to hearing from Others.  Thanks in advance for your input.

*edited because a post that nitpicks about formatting prose should be formatted correctly!



MrSpectacular -> RE: chat speak, protocals and judgements. (11/24/2007 7:12:55 PM)

It is ironic don't you think that you misspelled protocol - but I won't go there since this is about grammar and I don't want to judge.



KatyLied -> RE: chat speak, protocals and judgements. (11/24/2007 7:26:35 PM)

Go back to the op and see how he spelled grammar.  



CalifChick -> RE: chat speak, protocals and judgements. (11/24/2007 7:28:39 PM)

"Judgement" is also "Judgment".  But whom am I to nitpick?

If my brain has to work overtime to just understand the message someone is trying to convey, then they are using the wrong method.  If someone cannot take the extra few seconds to type out "oh I see" or "Can you read this" then obviously I am not worth their time, and conversely, they are not worth mine. 

I don't know where high school students are allowed to use text speak on exams, but certainly not where I live.  Even if it were allowed, I would not allow it. I am raising my own to do things the correct way, not the quick and lazy way.

Cali
PS:  Now if we could just ban slash speak, things would be right with the world. (I/i H/had T/to D/do I/it, I/i C/couldn't R/r/e/s/i/s/t) [:'(] [:'(] [:'(]



KatyLied -> RE: chat speak, protocals and judgements. (11/24/2007 7:33:54 PM)

quote:

Now if we could just ban slash speak, things would be right with the world. (I/i H/had T/to D/do I/it, I/i C/couldn't R/r/e/s/i/s/t)


That will never happen.  It's the only way on-line people know how to discern orientation.



carlie310 -> RE: chat speak, protocals and judgements. (11/24/2007 7:39:49 PM)

I'm a grammar nerd (yeah, we exist, how do you think Eats, Shoots and Leaves ended up on the bestseller lists?)--that stuff is important to me.  Shakespeare may have broken all kinds of rules, but the rules were only set in jello, if that, when he was writing.  He spelled his own name in a number of different ways, for example.  Grammar at the time meant LATIN grammar anyway, English was for the unwashed hordes.

Grammar, spelling and clarity of thought are all ways to evaluate a prospective partner--and I do use them.  (As well as others in my complex algorithm that helps me decide whether to email someone back or just say "no thank you.")  If I'm chatting, chat-speak is fine, but too much of it makes my eyes cross.  In email, I'm not going to cast any stones at typos or the odd error.  But in a profile, I won't like a split-infinitive because I remember Sr. Dawn from the 7th grade pounding desks with her sawed off hockey sticks whenever she heard one. If you have something like "I seen" or "might could" or get two/to/too confused, I'll roll my eyes. IMHO, ending a sentence with a preposition is nothing to be upset about.  Too many errors? That's someone I probably won't be able to correspond with for long, because it will make my eyeballs bleed.

(And yes, the story about the nun? True.)



RRafe -> RE: chat speak, protocals and judgements. (11/24/2007 7:43:30 PM)

That's fine,but expect to be ignored and ridiculed by those who don't care for it. Makes about as much sense to most folks as speaking in "pig latin".and about as easy to figure out.

If you make it difficult to understand you-people will just stop trying. So much for any "cause" you may be rationalizing.



feralkyttin -> RE: chat speak, protocals and judgements. (11/24/2007 7:47:59 PM)

Talking to myself again, for no particular reason,

*evidently is still jungle farkin' so she gives up on one thing and GOES FOR SOMETHING BETTER*


duhh...

thanks guys



Invictus754 -> RE: chat speak, protocals and judgements. (11/24/2007 7:51:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CalifChick

"Judgement" is also "Judgment".  But whom am I to nitpick?


True, because if we were the nitpicky sort, we would point out that pronouns that follow linking verbs are in the nominative case (But who am I to nitpick?)



Invictus754 -> RE: chat speak, protocals and judgements. (11/24/2007 7:53:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlie310
(And yes, the story about the nun? True.)


At least it was the desk, and not your hands. [:D]



CalifChick -> RE: chat speak, protocals and judgements. (11/24/2007 7:58:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Invictus754

quote:

ORIGINAL: CalifChick

"Judgement" is also "Judgment".  But whom am I to nitpick?


True, because if we were the nitpicky sort, we would point out that pronouns that follow linking verbs are in the nominative case (But who am I to nitpick?)


You're killing me.  I read that three times and still could NOT see the "m" sitting there on the end of that word.  I swear I did not type that.  Darn keyboard doing its own thing again.  Bahhhh!

Cali



carlie310 -> RE: chat speak, protocals and judgements. (11/24/2007 8:29:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Invictus754

quote:

ORIGINAL: CalifChick

"Judgement" is also "Judgment".  But whom am I to nitpick?


True, because if we were the nitpicky sort, we would point out that pronouns that follow linking verbs are in the nominative case (But who am I to nitpick?)

Knock, knock

Who's there?

It is I.

Go away, we don't want any more English teachers!



Owner4SexSlave -> RE: chat speak, protocals and judgements. (11/24/2007 9:08:13 PM)

I love all of the comments thus far.



LadyPact -> RE: chat speak, protocals and judgements. (11/24/2007 9:19:27 PM)

I tend to agree with the majority.  I'm sorry, but if someone can't be bothered the few extra keystrokes to say, "How are you?" rather than "how ru" I really don't think I need to spend much of My time on them.  I'm still old school enough to believe that the way a person speaks or writes helps to form the first impression.  I do make My judgements on that.



LATEXBABY64 -> RE: chat speak, protocols and judgements. (11/24/2007 9:31:54 PM)

what the hell.  If you look at written skills as a way to look at someone or judge them  I can sell you some swampy land in Florida   the writing Mind

  1. some people are poetic writers  ( every word rhymes with the last in some way)
  2. some people are slang writers (use obviations  such as chat ling l )
  3. some people are political correctivenes writers( they know wikiapedia by heart )
  4. some people are over achievers (they write so many paragraphs to say something simple)
  5. some people are billy bob writers (do not give a rats ass just on here for fun and what ever )

i am sure we can come up with more lol



wisteriaV -> RE: chat speak, protocols and judgements. (11/25/2007 6:14:00 AM)

i is kawledge ehdukaytited n hauked awn fhoniks dednet wurka foor meee[:D]



Owner4SexSlave -> RE: chat speak, protocols and judgements. (11/25/2007 6:27:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wisteriaV

i is kawledge ehdukaytited n hauked awn fhoniks dednet wurka foor meee[:D]


I think I almost translated this post to read as...

I am knowledge educated in _____ and _____  did not work for me.  

Can anybody fill in the blanks?



kyraofMists -> RE: chat speak, protocols and judgements. (11/25/2007 6:49:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner4SexSlave

I am knowledge educated in _____ and _____  did not work for me.  

Can anybody fill in the blanks?


"hooked on phonics"



Level -> RE: chat speak, protocals and judgements. (11/25/2007 6:58:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KatyLied

Get thee to a nunnery!


[:D]



Vanatru -> RE: chat speak, protocals and judgements. (11/25/2007 7:39:27 AM)

I can't really believe chat speak is the next evolution of english any more than El33t speach was supposed to be. It's hard to understand, takes time to read, and the reader looses the meaning of the message with translating the text. Maybe for very brief communications it can work, but O4SS, you obviously don't even believe it yourself as your entire text was (fairly well) spelled, puncuated, and the like. There's no way I'd have bothered even reading your OP if you'd used chat speak in it, nor I'm betting would you have had much response as people would have simply given up trying to translate that garbage into something intelligible.

As far as Shakespeare is concerned, remember he wrote to the masses, so he used the "popular" form of English (which is of course different than the "proper" form of English). Bad grammar and spelling still is just bad grammar and spelling.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125