Wow, this is accurate for today. I even read Newspeak as Net-speak. So I called attention to the problem based upon that. This is why when someone IMs me with "what's up" as their greeting of choice I answer very literally to mock their choice of words (usually with 'the ceiling' or 'the sky'). This is why I find it very difficult to accept things like 'dum' or 'wat' or 'hmu' or 'u mad' and why I am having constant conversations over those types of things with people who think I'm crazy and anal and might be right. I JUST WANT ENGLISH TO STAY THE WAY IT IS. I don't want it to be miniaturized until nobody even thinks to say things like "I'm confused" or "I'll be around if you want to talk to me later" or "The idiocy of that astounds me" or "Ludicrous and lame, sir, please stop talking about this" or "It sounds like this might be bothering you". Or the endless amounts of words that disappear into net-speak. Is it such a crime, really, to expect those people you talk to to actually put some thought and effort into their conversations with you, even if it requires a few more letters and a couple more seconds of consideration? To perpetuate a diverse English by trying to beat back all diminutive replacements of explanatory versions of complex concepts? Based on the reactions, I could guess it is, but you know what? I commit it proudly. I'm not saying net-speak has to poof disappear as though it never existed and we should all return to speaking as though we're trying to impress a professor. I'm just saying that interspersing it with actual, well-thought-out words and phrases gets so much more across and shows a responsibility, maturity, appreciation, consideration and intellectual presence in the conversation that mere net-speak doesn't quite. By the way, I thank with all of myself all of the people I talk to who know and do this already. You make it so much easier to deal with those who don't get it. ♥