Re: OT-ish: txt - Could it replace Standard Written English?

John Cowan wrote:

>>   None of those things make spelling irrelevant.
>
>You asked rhetorically, if mechanics are not what English papers are to be
>judged on, what is?  I replied.
Fair enough. That's under that rhetorical "if" though; I still think that
in the actual criteria, the mechanics should be included.

>> And consider your audience: what
>> good are arguments if your reader can't decipher the text?
>
>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/SaccoV/S&Vletters.html
I don't get it.
Yes, I have heard of Sacco and Vanzetti, no I don't know every detail of
the story, no I'm not willing to read all of those letters. Could you give
me the gist of it?
If I were a teacher, and could not read what a student had handed in, I
could assign no grade but "zero", or else hand the paper back and give the
student a chance to rewrite it.

>> The student in question demonstrates a form of English
>> which is more dumbed-down and esoteric than ever before.
>
>For the first time today I saw texting in an ad that was not for cellphone
>service, used purely for its in-group/out-group effect.
I've seen something like that as well. Can't remember where though. What
was the ad you saw?

Mike
(the first up against the wall when TEH R3VLU0T1ON came)