"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:4941782f@news.povray.org...
> FWIW, I'm more tolerant to some piracy than to people using "u" and "ppl"
> and "coz" repeatedly >.<
>

 Why? It's fine for me. As a non english speaker, Saul has found a way that 
is comfortable for him. Now, take my son, who is an english speaker and read 
the rubbish that he types into his phone -  if you could, that is.

   ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
> the rubbish that he types into his phone

Almost understandable, given you're typing with a 10-key interface into a 
mechanism that gives you two lines of text per message.

(On the other hand, I figure if you need more than two lines, dial the other 
person's phone number and talk to them. ;-)


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:31:53 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>  ppl means Private Pilot License or Preferred Parts
> List amongst other things.

Past Participle. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:42:02 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> St. wrote:
>> the rubbish that he types into his phone
> 
> Almost understandable, given you're typing with a 10-key interface into
> a mechanism that gives you two lines of text per message.
> 
> (On the other hand, I figure if you need more than two lines, dial the
> other person's phone number and talk to them. ;-)

Well, and the "lingo" evolved because the billing used to be "by the 
character", IIRC.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, and the "lingo" evolved because the billing used to be "by the
> character", IIRC.

Not really. It's because SMS messages are limited to 160 characters.

Plus, of course, the fact that the less you have to type the better... At
least if you don't have predictive text (T9 and friends).

Post a reply to this message

On 15-Dec-08 2:35, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> OK, I'm answering everyone in this post:
> I may sound juvenile because I wrote a lot in a juvenile game forum and 
> Stephen what I was quoting was from the article u offered a link to, so 
> I don't see why it sounded juvenile. I had no problem at all on that 
> forum trying to understand the posts since is only a simple case on word 
> abbreviations by replacing them for their phonetics proxys.
> 
> Also I can't believe somebody actually got insulted by this type of 
> abbreviations, I actually don't see the logic of the "insult". Was my 
> post saying: you are dumb because you who have fought dyslexia can't 
> read it? If so, I never even got close to mention dyslexia people, I 
> only meant that some people here do intellectual achievements by 
> publishing very mind challenging posts to show off themselves as a true 
> purpose so I found ridiculous that people here complained about a simple 
> mental replacement. Anyway, I don't meant that the people that 
> complaining about it is the same that made those show offs, I think was 
> a mistake on my part to assume that everyone here would be able to 
> understand me, since I assume smart people don't have a problem with 
> this kind Internet slang, let alone knowing some people here had a won 
> battle against dyslexia. I apology for the mistake.
> 

I think there is something funny in this group, and you are not the 
first to experience it in this way. As you know news.povray.org is 
deliberately not part of the standard newsgroup system. Perhaps it is 
more than just a physical disconnection. I think on average the people 
here are somewhat older and although very involved in computers, they 
are not the rather empty showing off 'skills' type. Some of us even 
think before writing (not me of course).
You might also have noticed the continued annoyance with the lack of 
spell checking of our mascot. I think that in general you could say that 
many here appreciate it if you write good English or at least try to. If 
you are not a native speaker, use that to your advantage. Note that we 
are a friendly bunch of guys, and the occasional lady, but don't take us 
to seriously, we tend to like running gags. If you don't stop being 
taken by surprise with what goes on here, u and ur u may become one of 
those.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:10:58 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, and the "lingo" evolved because the billing used to be "by the
>> character", IIRC.
> 
> Not really. It's because SMS messages are limited to 160 characters.

Well, yeah, but each message used to be (and in some places/on some 
plans, still is) billed by the message.  That's what I was thinking.  So 
conserving space was/is an important consideration in that venue.

> Plus, of course, the fact that the less you have to type the better...
> At least if you don't have predictive text (T9 and friends).

Yep.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:35:41 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:

> Also I can't believe somebody actually got insulted by this type of
> abbreviations,

I don't think that it's that anybody was insulted, Saul, I think that 
it's that it's not part of the cultural norm of these newsgroups.

When communicating, it's important to take your audience into 
consideration - whether spoken, written, or whatever.

Online communities develop their own personalities and cultural norms.  
The use of SMS text abbreviations is pervasive through some, and not in 
others.

This is one of the ones where it isn't as pervasive.  Sure, some things 
(like LOL) find their way into it.  But when you are trying to get a 
point across or discuss something, it's always best to take the listener/
reader into consideration.

I mean, I cood right yousing wired wurdz or 3v3n 1337-5p33k two tri- too 
luk kewl.  Buht t3ll m3 h0w d1ff1cu1t eye ahm 2 uhndrstahnd.

When you're reading along full tilt and then you have to stop to think 
about what's been written, the end result often is that you stop reading 
and go onto the next message.

Now, tell me you read the paragraph immediately proceeding this one and 
the one before it at the same speed.  I *wrote* it, and the first one 
takes me longer, even though it's shorter.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:10:58 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Well, and the "lingo" evolved because the billing used to be "by the
>>> character", IIRC.
>> 
>> Not really. It's because SMS messages are limited to 160 characters.
> 
> Well, yeah, but each message used to be (and in some places/on some
> plans, still is) billed by the message.  That's what I was thinking.  So
> conserving space was/is an important consideration in that venue.

Yes, definitely.

I mean it was never charged per character. It was and is charged per
message, but their length is ridiculously limited :)

Post a reply to this message

On 15-Dec-08 22:47, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:10:58 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Well, and the "lingo" evolved because the billing used to be "by the
>>>> character", IIRC.
>>> Not really. It's because SMS messages are limited to 160 characters.
>> Well, yeah, but each message used to be (and in some places/on some
>> plans, still is) billed by the message.  That's what I was thinking.  So
>> conserving space was/is an important consideration in that venue.
> 
> Yes, definitely.
> 
> I mean it was never charged per character. It was and is charged per
> message, but their length is ridiculously limited :)
> 
IIRC the length was such that when the telephone switched to switched 
packets this was what could fit in one packet. Added as a funny extra in 
the protocol, never intended to be really used. D*mned internet, I can't 
find that story, so it is probably not true :( One used to be able to 
say such things and if they were not true you could at least have 
started a meme.

Post a reply to this message