For one thing "ur" instead of "you're".
If you write your posts like a teenager writing a text, people won't bother reading, nor will they take you seriously. Avoiding unnecessary, unreadable text message abbreviations goes a long way towards effective communications.
It doesn't matter if you're from the hood or not. Everyone modifies their voice for writing from their spoken voice. The advantage of writing is that one can edit and modify to best convey their message.
while I naturally sympathize, in general, with your wish for some adherence to a certain "standard" when communicating in text, I do mildly object to labelling it "like a teenager writing"
I don't believe that's what's happenin'...
the thread's author is simply - literally - spelling simple words the way those words sound, when spoken - albeit in an abbreviated, but easily-recognizable form - using "ur" to replace "you're" or "your", but NOT, for example, "Eeohr" - but he's not doing that to more complicated words (like "kmplkted", for example) which then MIGHT be misconstrued
I think it actually shows a certain respect for the reader(s), if a tad presumptious that they're also bright enough to "get" the simple abbreviations
Of course, it raises the question: Why IS it that the same "adherence to standard" isn't so rigidly applied to the spoken word?
You ARE, after all, expected, practically every day, to engage in conversation with a "mixed" audience - y'know, people ("ppl") you bump into, and to be smart enough, yourself, to "roll-with" the language as it is being spoken - ie, you're expected to "get it" - whatever "streamlining" the speaker (from whatever background or training or sensibility) applies.
eg: (for example) there's "there's", instead of "there is", "didn't", instead of "did not", or "you're", instead of "you are", etc. ("etc" being another inadvertant example!)
There is no, "Uh, could you repeat that, and, uh, use the full words - no apostrophes or abbreviations, please?"
So, you can SPEAK in "streamlined", abbreviated, or apostrophied - and perfectly understandable - forms, but, what? when you attempt to WRITE that, as it sounds, when spoken , therefore all meaning is suddenly obscured?
I do not think so.
I too sometimes abbreviate my text - substituting "you're" and/or "your(s)" - not with "ur", but with the same, spoken-sounding - and quicker-to-type "yer(s)", as in, "Yer standing on my foot!", or "Hey pal, that stink is definitely yers"...
... I have also often been known, in my twangier moments, to substitute the word "and" with " 'n " - as in, "rice 'n beans"
people "get it"
they may not like it, but HEY! I'm a tree-planter!
the point is, I don't think that the author of this thread, by his occasional "streamlining" of the written word, rendered anything so incommunicable as to obscure the point.
The quoted article (re GMOs, Gates, Monsanto, Spitzbergen cold-storage, and the implied future of food) was understandable enough! - there WAS no "communication break-down" there - the salient points were made! but here we are, anyway, deliberating a few shortcuts which the thread's author took, delivering it.
I do believe this is an obvious case of "attack the messenger" - as somebody else suggested - that the initial objection raised is an idealogical response to the implications, suggested in the article - of "corporate intrigue" (STILL in denial) - than it is about the text used.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that initial objection - to a (very) few liberties taken - seems bent on completely ignoring the devastating implications of the article.
(at least, it seemed that way, when I began this reply, which was three or four hours ago)
Someone else suggests that the "source" is questionable.
Please outline yer doubts about the "source" of that article - give us some xmpls yer psbly concerned with - don't just make the inference and walk away.
