text messages

Subject: text merssages
From: guitar
Date: 19 May 07 - 09:32 AM

I believe in the three r's which is reading, writing and arithmetic, I mean I was shown a text/message on someon'e last night and I couldn't understand it, it was a like a code, I mean people are leaving school now and they can't read. write (spell) or do simple maths, I mean I know that I'm not the clever at these things and I make the odd spelling mistake every now and again, but I mean yr I mean what does that mean. Are these people not getting taught these three simple rules at school where they leave and they can't read, spell or write or do simple maths, I'll gice you an example I was in a cafe with my father and I ordered our meals, and it came to aus$3.50 each, the wee girl then took a calculator and added them both up, I mean I know it came to Aus $7.00

I mean these people would lost with out a calculator and a spell chck machine, in other words a battery and a plug.

I mean what is the world coming to.

Subject: RE: text merssages
From: guitar
Date: 19 May 07 - 09:33 AM

that is phone

Subject: RE: text merssages
From: guitar
Date: 19 May 07 - 09:44 AM

I meant to say Text messages on mobile phones I'm not that good with keyboards

Subject: RE: text merssages
From: GUEST,GST
Date: 19 May 07 - 09:44 AM

fkd f i no ?

ltr m8s

Subject: RE: text merssages
From: wysiwyg
Date: 19 May 07 - 09:49 AM

Kids have always used codes to develop communicatios adults can't follow. Ixnay on the hiningway.

~S~

Subject: RE: text merssages
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 May 07 - 10:01 AM

I think guitar is having a problem when these youngsters interact with him in this 'code'...

Subject: RE: text messages
From: mack/misophist
Date: 19 May 07 - 10:21 AM

Do what I do. Eschew cell phones.

Subject: RE: text messages
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 May 07 - 10:28 AM

Aren't they a bit crunchy?

Subject: RE: text messages
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 19 May 07 - 10:30 AM

what's worse is when the same abbreviations are used in other communications.

Back in the olden days (3 months ago, before I retired) I used to see the same in emails from students/employees wanting data from the Govt agency I worked for. I was never impressed.

sandra (luddite without a mobile phone)

Subject: RE: text messages
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 May 07 - 10:44 AM

h3y, 411 ur 60><3r5 r 6310n9 2 u5! 1337 ru135!

Subject: RE: text messages
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 19 May 07 - 10:51 AM

Does that actually mean something?

Subject: RE: text messages
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 May 07 - 10:56 AM

Rapaire speaks 1337!

Subject: RE: text messages
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 May 07 - 11:07 AM

pronounced "leet" - standing for 'elite'...

Subject: RE: text messages
From: JennyO
Date: 19 May 07 - 11:07 AM

I h8 txt msgs!

Seriously, I think it is a clumsy primitive way of communicating. I've had text messages flying back and forth with my daughter because she likes doing it, and it turns what could be a 1 minute conversation on the phone into 10 minutes of tapping in letters and sending little snippets, and at the end of it all, I still haven't got or given all the information I wanted.

Not only that - she mt thnk she's savg $, but if u + up th msgs, it amts 2 mor $ thn a qik ph cl!

Subject: RE: text messages
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 May 07 - 11:09 AM

W OO W OO W W W!!!

Subject: RE: text messages
From: JennyO
Date: 19 May 07 - 01:03 PM

(£1(|{ h3r3

Subject: RE: text messages
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 19 May 07 - 01:05 PM

W't a l'd o cr'p

Subject: RE: text messages
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 19 May 07 - 02:42 PM

So what did Rapaire's message mean (this from a parent of an 18 year old who should at least understand some of this....)

Subject: RE: text messages
From: Rog Peek
Date: 19 May 07 - 02:55 PM

You're not entirely on your own Sandra in Sydney, I've not got a mobile either. All this is just gobbledigook to me.

Subject: RE: text messages
From: Bill D
Date: 19 May 07 - 04:30 PM

I'll abbreviate 'government', but not the word 'you'.

Subject: RE: text messages
From: Morticia
Date: 19 May 07 - 06:24 PM

I'd find your diatribe against Leet more convincing if you didn't start every sentence with ' I mean'.

Subject: RE: text messages
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 May 07 - 10:58 PM

"h3y, 411 ur 60><3r5 r 6310n9 2 u5! 1337 ru135"

"Hey, all your boxers are belong to us! Leet rules!"

Now, for you non-leeters:

3 sorta looks like E, only backwards.
4 sorta looks like A.
1   "    "    " lower-case L.
6   "    "    "      "    B.
5   do    do    do S.
><   do    do    do X.
9    do    do    do g


And the whole thing comes from a bad translation of a video game.

And now you'll never again see a license plate without trying to "read" it in leet.

Subject: RE: text messages
From: JennyO
Date: 20 May 07 - 01:08 AM

Did anyone check my link back there? It said "All your boxers are belong to us". I guess not.

By the way, what I said was "click here" in leet.

Subject: RE: text messages
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 May 07 - 01:42 AM

JennyO - that's "English leet" - not possible on a US-ASCII keyboard - no pound sign...

I kept the link to the UnEncyclopedia...

Subject: RE: text messages
From: guitar
Date: 20 May 07 - 03:57 AM

see what I mean by the 'code' I just like plain English, that's why when I use my mobile phone and I have to text anyone, I'll spell the word instead of just using abbabbreviations, and I'm not the only one who thinks like this there are like me who thinks the same

Subject: RE: text messages
From: guitar
Date: 20 May 07 - 04:03 AM

ps which isn't very often

Subject: RE: text messages
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 May 07 - 04:47 AM

Recent reports are that some therapists are advocating the inclusion of the "texting thumb" as a recognized medical dysfunction akin to carpal tunnel and other physiological stress ailments.

John

Subject: RE: text messages
From: JennyO
Date: 20 May 07 - 09:10 AM

True, Robin. I could have substituted other things for the L. Leet has all sorts of variations, and is still evolving.

Still pondering abbabbreviations. I suppose that would be when they sang their big hit $ $ $.

Subject: RE: text messages
From: wysiwyg
Date: 20 May 07 - 09:15 AM

I guess I feel the same way about texting directed my way as I do about ALL code languages directed my way-- I have no idea what they mean and I let the other person know that, and they revert to communication that works. "Huh? No speak Textlish." "Huh? No speak rhyming slang." "Huh? No speak PhD."

But there's nothing new about the phenomenon; this is just the current code in favor.

~S~

Subject: RE: text messages
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 May 07 - 05:54 PM

Y34, 1 m1557 17, J3nny-0. 50rry.

But I don't do text messaging on my cell phone, nor do I take pictures with it or use it to surf the WWW. It works fine for phone calls, and I have other things that take better pictures and surf the WWW better.

I mean, c'mon. Take a 1 megapixel photo and have to email it, which costs, when I can take a 6 megapixel photo by using my camera? Or surf the web with a cell phone screen when I have 20" LCD screen at work, a 17" LCD one at home, a 19" CRT at home, and my with has a 19" LCD? And real keyboards? Get real!

Subject: RE: text messages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 May 07 - 06:07 PM

Text messages are handy. Much more convenient than leaving a voice message.

The odd thing about these supposedly time-saving abbreviations is that, if you use "predictive text" on your mobile (ie "cellphone"), it doesn't recognise them; in fact the timesavers make things much slower than writing in standard English.

Subject: RE: text messages
From: JennyO
Date: 20 May 07 - 11:11 PM

I use text messaging as little as possible. As I have already said, I find it clumsy, inefficient, and a big waste of time, and by the time you have sent a few - it's NOT cheaper. I only text my daughter back when she has texted me, and she seems to be more likely to notice the messages than to hear her phone ringing for some reason. Often after a few painfully slow interchanges, I give up and ring her, and a lot of the time, she doesn't answer. GRRRRR!

Rapaire, I agree about the cellphones. I have a stone-age phone with no camera, and I can't be bothered doing anything else fancy with it. It's good as a phone. I have a good digital camera and a fast broadband connection at home. What else do I need?

Subject: RE: text messages
From: Sorcha
Date: 21 May 07 - 12:02 AM

I don't even have a cell phone. I had one, hated the sumbitch, got rid of it when the contract was up. Flat refused to get another.

My car has a phone tho. I use it as seldom as possible.

I refuse to text and have little patience with people who do. I take pictures with my camera, check e mail on the computer, and talk on the land line. I even make notes and lists with a pen and a piece of paper.

Subject: RE: text messages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 May 07 - 01:35 PM

Texts are better if you're sending a message to someone who might be driving a car, or in a place where they can't use their mobile.

Subject: RE: text messages
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 21 May 07 - 02:33 PM

I agree with most of what has been (negatively) said about text messages. But I ask the group, when was the last time you actually hand-wrote a letter to a friend or loved one, much less with a "real" (fountain) pen? By the way, how many here can honestly say that they proofread their posts before submitting them? The problem does not only live in text messages.

But back to text messages, when someone is texting while driving, how many drinks is that worth in terms of one's diminished ability to competently drive?

Subject: RE: text messages
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 May 07 - 02:46 PM

I wrote, with a fountain pen and ink, a letter to my uncle yesterday. It was on laid ivory paper in permanent black ink, and I spent US $0.41 to dispatch it via US Mail.

If I get a call or need to make a call via my cellphone while driving I pull over if it's at all possible, even answering and saying, "Hold on, I've got to pull over." I've tried "hands-free" headsets, but it's still a distraction.

Ain't no phone call more important to me than me!

Subject: RE: text messages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 May 07 - 04:03 PM

Anybody who uses a mobile phone for talking, let alone texting, while driving obviously deserves to lose their driving licence for life, and they'd be getting off lucky at that.

The point about texting is, you can wait till it's safe to send them and wait until it's safe to read them. And when you send one you aren't inviting a driver to pick up the phone the way you might be with an ordinary call.

Subject: RE: text messages
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 May 07 - 07:54 PM

An uncomfortable revelation many parents have gotten after the kid gets the cell phone is that for many wireless/cell services, even if you've carefully selected the one with the most favorable rates, no roaming charges, and all the other "expected" services you might want:

Text messages are frequently charged by the word, or by the message

without regard to how long the connection is held open or how distant the place connected. For many users, both sender and receiver pay for each message.

My local newsrag this morning cites the case of "Sophia" whose parents recently received a monthly bill including 6,807 text messages, for which the bill said "$1,100" (US) for the month's texting.

While some services claim to provide "unlimited texting," there usually is actually a limit. Verizon has recently announced a "new unlimited texting" service (slightly more expensive that the old one?) because many kids are exceeding the 5,000 messages per month that the old "unlimited" plan allowed.

One explanation for the popularity of texting, offered by an industry analyst group, is that every phone call made from the kids' cell phones is recorded and time-stamped on the (parents?) phone bill; but text messages are not recorded¹ so the parents don't know who the kids talk to.

¹ recorded = on the bill. Anyone who thinks the phone co doesn't know who they text to hasn't heard about the "new act" by the "Patriots."

Ref: My local rag doesn't leave anything up long enough to be worth linking, but the article was by Margaret Webb Pressler on a Washington Post byline, and likely will appear elsewhere.

John