If you're commenting on the improper substitution of "grammar" for usage and spelling, yes.

Well, that too. I'm also referring to how people claim that spelling and usage, including texting shorthand, is somehow killing the English language. Shorthand actually builds reading, writing, and deciphering skills. Written language changes all the time, as does grammar and vocabulary. To say that he's wrong for writing shorthand or that doing so is damaging to language is ludicrous. By the way, see up there where I said "texting"? Not to mention how many times it's been said in the comments? Spell-check doesn't accept it as a word, because "text" is supposed to exclusively be a noun. I wonder if anyone will mention the grammar "error" I made in that last paragraph.

230, there's a line between linguistic changes that make their way into standard use and communicating unintelligibly. If something is too difficult for the average reader to decipher, the point of the message gets lost. I also notice that you took the time to craft your argument in a comprehensible way that would get most English teachers' seals of approval. You're not exactly doing your part to promote major changes to the language.

The issue isn't whether he was understood or not. If she started arguments so that he would type in a way she could understand, that's a different story. But she just wants him to stop typing in a way that annoys her. Following this are comments basically saying that he's stupid for not typing out his words in the first place. All the shorthand written in the comments are intelligible because I've seen things written like that for so long, and I guarantee you're at least partially the same way. It's not that people can't understand it, it's that people don't want to. This is the same thing as people complaining that rappers are doing horrific things to the English language. They're not. It's a manner of speaking that just so happens to differ from what's taught in schools. Also, I type like this out of habit (20 years of school will do that to a person). That's not to say that teaching people to write a certain way is wrong, it's actually a perfect way to unify writing so that a teacher or professor can run through papers faster. In real life, though, school rules don't apply. Language doesn't have rules, and there's no such thing as bad grammar.

That depends...however, from a linguist point of view, it looks as if prescriptive writers (grammar Nazis) will win out. Just look at how many people are opposed to the shorthand. It will only become officially engrained when it becomes perfectly natural for most people in the social and/or professional setting.

*Ingrained? Wow, autocorrect isn't sure if I spelled it write either... Well, I'll be damned...

It doesn't necessarily work that way, though. Shorthand is most common in relaxed social settings, like a social networking site or texting a friend. It probably won't ever get integrated into a business setting (and absolutely not in a school setting, although I've heard of professors who have allowed students to say "lol" in a paper). From a linguistic standpoint, it's not a matter of if it's accepted so much as it happens, therefore it exists. Part of it might be the next generation trying to separate itself from the older folks who have either never used it or have broken themselves of it (much like slang in general), to provide for themselves a manner of language that only they can understand. Along that line of thought, it's doubtful shorthand will ever disappear, and the people arguing for prescriptive grammar will always oppose its use. I'll admit sometimes I have a hard time taking someone seriously when they use shorthand (grade school and high school wrecked me for years, but not as much as my shiny new linguistics education is currently) but I find it to be acceptable for no other reason than the fact that people talk to be understood, and don't often mind the finer details. I really wish I could use the "energy saving" argument since that's what makes the most sense to me as to why language simplifies, but then it's just supporting the "people are lazy" argument but on a different level. Food for thought: Old English is ridiculously complicated in comparison with the English we speak today, and people weren't happy about the language simplifying back then, either. One man believed the death of the English language was coming because people weren't pronouncing the 'e' when using past tense anymore.

It eliminates the posibility that somebody could just correct you as a counter-argument as opposed to finding a legitimate point to use.

It's just people slowly killing the English language. I may not use proper grammar all the time, but at least I try to do it 95% of the time. And I'll actually make fun of people who use shorthand with me.

Are you the dick who invented stereotypes?

It's called deductive reasoning, he must be dumb therefore she must be ugly,,,, or he is very rich and she is a gold digger