So... why am I working so hard?

[coolchinchilla]

I was reading somewhere that a 90 gallon tank could house 15 mbunas.
(!) I have 10 in a 30 gallon. Hmmmmmmm.... I also read that
Mbunas prefer a sand or small pebble substrate. I have large
gravel. It also said that UGFs are no good because the fish waste
would overwhelm it and because the fish like to dig so much. I have
a UGF on this tank.

But the guy I got it from had happy healthy fish with no aggression
problems, he changed 10% of the water twice a month w/light gravel
vac, never tested the water, fed 'em 2 large tablespoons of flakes
twice a day (I timed about 4 minutes for 1 teaspoon), and quite lax
about changing the HOB filter cartridge (it came to me really gunked
up).

From what I've read in my short tenure of being a cichlid owner
that this guy wasn't takeing care of his fish well enough. But when
I tested his water it was fine with maybe too much nitrate (40ppm),
the fish all looked healthy and they went through the stress of
moving generally just fine. So... why am I working so hard?

Is what I'm doing making their life better? Can I tell myself that
they were "surviving" before and under my care they are "thriving"?

Just being reflective here. :-)
coolchinchilla

[Gill Passman]

"coolchinchilla" > wrote in message
...
> I was reading somewhere that a 90 gallon tank could house 15 mbunas.
> (!) I have 10 in a 30 gallon. Hmmmmmmm.... I also read that
> Mbunas prefer a sand or small pebble substrate. I have large
> gravel. It also said that UGFs are no good because the fish waste
> would overwhelm it and because the fish like to dig so much. I have
> a UGF on this tank.
>
> But the guy I got it from had happy healthy fish with no aggression
> problems, he changed 10% of the water twice a month w/light gravel
> vac, never tested the water, fed 'em 2 large tablespoons of flakes
> twice a day (I timed about 4 minutes for 1 teaspoon), and quite lax
> about changing the HOB filter cartridge (it came to me really gunked
> up).
>
> From what I've read in my short tenure of being a cichlid owner
> that this guy wasn't takeing care of his fish well enough. But when
> I tested his water it was fine with maybe too much nitrate (40ppm),
> the fish all looked healthy and they went through the stress of
> moving generally just fine. So... why am I working so hard?
>
> Is what I'm doing making their life better? Can I tell myself that
> they were "surviving" before and under my care they are "thriving"?
>
> Just being reflective here. :-)
> coolchinchilla

I've read varying things about the number of fish and tank sizes. I have
around 15 in a 47UK gall tank plus one pl*co - I say around as looking at
them as I type I think at least 3 of the fry must now count as fish in terms
of bio-load. Water parameters are fine in the tank so I'm guessing that the
load is OK - I do weekly 10-20% water changes once a week and scrape algae
twice a week off the front.

There is a reason behind using fine gravel/sand. Mine scrape it up in their
mouths and then drop it back out again. I remember reading somewhere that
this helps with digestion - and then somewhere else that they are sifting
for food. I'm not convinced why they do it but I would certainly say that it
appears to be part of their natural behaviour so fine gravel/sand is a good
idea.

Like you, I used to be concerned about this tank - in fact a few weeks ago I
wanted to go trade all the fish back and have a "normal" community tank
again. I lost 3 fish in tank - two almost certainly down to bullying. I
removed a fourth as I could see that they were tormenting her - I took her
back to the shop. From time to time some of the fish get picked on and end
up with injuries (usually tattered tails) - however they do recover while
remaining in the main tank (I keep an eye out for any infections) - this is
normally followed by the sudden arrival of more fish..... :-)

I used to worry about the rock work, the algae, the bullying - but this is
how these fish are and I suppose this is part and parcel of keeping Mbunas.
I no longer worry if one disappears into the rock work for a while and
doesn't feed for a few days - it normally means more fry on the way....

I don't worry about the algae too much either - it seems to provide a good
source of food for the fry (and the Pl*co). It just means a bit more
scraping of the front for me....

I've let it be for the last 6 weeks or so (apart from water changes) and am
now being rewarded with a very interesting tank with the whole thing working
on different levels. There is the adult community at the top and the baby
community at the bottom. Some of the older fry are now venturing out more
and more and exhibiting the behaviour of the adults but in minature. The
really small ones (this weeks batch - labs I think) just poke their heads
out of small crevices in the rocks, grab what food they can and go straight
back in....I even put up with the sand mountains that some of the larger
ones are intent on creating...I suppose it gives the tank a more natural
look...

My advice really is don't worry about the number of fish, keep up the water
changes, if you think you have sufficient caves leave these be now and
perhaps consider sand/fine gravel as a substrate - although I'm not sure how
this would work with your filter....maybe you could just add some in a
container....Hopefully then after a few weeks you'll have a tank that is a
community much like mine now is....

Gill

[NetMax]

"coolchinchilla" > wrote in message
...
>I was reading somewhere that a 90 gallon tank could house 15 mbunas. (!)
>I have 10 in a 30 gallon. Hmmmmmmm.... I also read that Mbunas prefer
>a sand or small pebble substrate. I have large gravel. It also said
>that UGFs are no good because the fish waste would overwhelm it and
>because the fish like to dig so much. I have a UGF on this tank.

All true (to varying degrees of importance imo).

> But the guy I got it from had happy healthy fish with no aggression
> problems, he changed 10% of the water twice a month w/light gravel vac,
> never tested the water, fed 'em 2 large tablespoons of flakes twice a
> day (I timed about 4 minutes for 1 teaspoon), and quite lax about
> changing the HOB filter cartridge (it came to me really gunked up).

I'm quite sure that as many fish die from excess care as from neglect.
'Dirty' filters which still pass water and 'dirty' aquariums with algae
are not bad things from a fish's perspective. Calling them happy is
subjective. There might have been significant DOCs in that water, and
their immune systems might have been quite inactive. If exposed to a
contagion, they might have turned bad very quickly, so don't read too
much into it. Agression or non-aggression is not a reliable method to
assess their conditions. They can be non-aggressive in poor conditions,
and give them something to fight about (new caves) and war breaks out.
The key is to achieve both, good conditions and an environment which does
not cause excess aggression.

> From what I've read in my short tenure of being a cichlid owner that
> this guy wasn't takeing care of his fish well enough. But when I
> tested his water it was fine with maybe too much nitrate (40ppm), the
> fish all looked healthy and they went through the stress of moving
> generally just fine. So... why am I working so hard?

Fish are adaptive, and mbuna are tough fish. Other tropicals might not
have made the move so easily, so then you would feel more justified in
improving their lot ;~).

> Is what I'm doing making their life better? Can I tell myself that
> they were "surviving" before and under my care they are "thriving"?
>
> Just being reflective here. :-)
> coolchinchilla

There are relatively few absolute truths. Most information is in shades
of gray, slowly shifting their aquatic environment to something which is
more suitable. The less experience you have, the more useful the
guidelines are. Some recommendations are based on their natural
environments (which the fish may have never seen or experienced, and fish
can't read either). Other recommendations you simply cannot get around
(the physics of the nitrogen cycle, or depletion of your buffer).

One of the best tools is observation, watching for changes in behaviour,
color etc. Assess any new information you hear or read against what you
are doing now and use your discretion as to how much and how fast to
implement it. Familiarize yourself with what causes stress to fish, so
that you can safely experiment a little.
--
www.NetMax.tk

[Alpha]

>
> There are relatively few absolute truths. Most information is in shades
> of gray, slowly shifting their aquatic environment to something which is
> more suitable. The less experience you have, the more useful the
> guidelines are. Some recommendations are based on their natural
> environments (which the fish may have never seen or experienced, and fish
> can't read either). Other recommendations you simply cannot get around
> (the physics of the nitrogen cycle, or depletion of your buffer).
>
> One of the best tools is observation, watching for changes in behaviour,
> color etc. Assess any new information you hear or read against what you
> are doing now and use your discretion as to how much and how fast to
> implement it. Familiarize yourself with what causes stress to fish, so
> that you can safely experiment a little.
> --
> www.NetMax.tk
>

These two paragraphs should be published. When so many variables are
involved, as in reducing an ecosystem to a millionth of the original,
prediction and science are merely starting points.

[spiral_72]

Isn't an UGF useless with large gravel??

stupid question: Why does everyone refer to Plecos as Pl*co?

[Gill Passman]

"spiral_72" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Isn't an UGF useless with large gravel??
>
> stupid question: Why does everyone refer to Plecos as Pl*co?
>

Superstition....

http://www.planetcatfish.com/shanesworld/s_c_175.php

Gill

[NetMax]

"spiral_72" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Isn't an UGF useless with large gravel??

Relatively yes, as the surface area for bacteria is small, and the ability
to deeply trap uneaten food is high. Some cichlids will also move gravel
around a lot, exposing portions of the plates which skew the water's flow
pattern (favouring open areas, starving bacteria elsewhere). Tanks with UGF
and fish which dig require a screen (ie: plastic flourescent diffuser) to
protect a layer of substrate above the plates.

> stupid question: Why does everyone refer to Plecos as Pl*co?

Oh oh, now you did it ;~). I just call them plecs and avoid all
controversy.
--
www.NetMax.tk

[Alpha]

"Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
.. .
>
> "spiral_72" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Isn't an UGF useless with large gravel??
>>
>> stupid question: Why does everyone refer to Plecos as Pl*co?


Stupidity and superstitious behavior (see Skinner for both).

[Gill Passman]

"Alpha" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "spiral_72" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >> Isn't an UGF useless with large gravel??
> >>
> >> stupid question: Why does everyone refer to Plecos as Pl*co?
>
>
> Stupidity and superstitious behavior (see Skinner for both).
>
>

You can say that....but in reality what difference does it make if someone
types Pleco or Pl*co?

Everyone knows what they mean....

[Alpha]

"Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Alpha" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >
>> > "spiral_72" > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> >> Isn't an UGF useless with large gravel??
>> >>
>> >> stupid question: Why does everyone refer to Plecos as Pl*co?
>>
>>
>> Stupidity and superstitious behavior (see Skinner for both).
>>
>>
>
> You can say that....but in reality what difference does it make if someone
> types Pleco or Pl*co?
>
> Everyone knows what they mean....
>

No they don't ... see the OP. Try getting a job where you invent changes
such as this in your correspondence or technical writing.

"The a*r pu*p shou*d b* c*onnected t* t*e in*ake v*lve."


>

[Alpha]

OOPs I made a mistake ;)) This is correct:

"The a*r pu*p shou*d b* c*nnected t* t*e in*ake v*lve."


"Alpha" > wrote in message news:...
>
> "Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> "Alpha" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>> >
>>> > "spiral_72" > wrote in message
>>> > oups.com...
>>> >> Isn't an UGF useless with large gravel??
>>> >>
>>> >> stupid question: Why does everyone refer to Plecos as Pl*co?
>>>
>>>
>>> Stupidity and superstitious behavior (see Skinner for both).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You can say that....but in reality what difference does it make if
>> someone
>> types Pleco or Pl*co?
>>
>> Everyone knows what they mean....
>>
>
> No they don't ... see the OP. Try getting a job where you invent changes
> such as this in your correspondence or technical writing.
>
> ">
>>
>
>

[Gill Passman]

"Alpha" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "Alpha" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> .. .
> >> >
> >> > "spiral_72" > wrote in message
> >> > oups.com...
> >> >> Isn't an UGF useless with large gravel??
> >> >>
> >> >> stupid question: Why does everyone refer to Plecos as Pl*co?
> >>
> >>
> >> Stupidity and superstitious behavior (see Skinner for both).
> >>
> >>
> >
> > You can say that....but in reality what difference does it make if
someone
> > types Pleco or Pl*co?
> >
> > Everyone knows what they mean....
> >
>
> No they don't ... see the OP. Try getting a job where you invent changes
> such as this in your correspondence or technical writing.
>
> "The a*r pu*p shou*d b* c*onnected t* t*e in*ake v*lve."
>
>
> >
>
>
OK....so look at the following:-

24x7x365
WAN
LAN
WAP
SMS - has at least 3 different meanings as far as I am aware - I could list
them if I could be bothered
HBA
SCSI
FDD
HDD
BU
SAN
FC
BAB
BEB
TL
ACSLS
HAM
CDM
NDS
AD

........I could carry on...but do you get my point???? These are all
abreviations/acronyms used in IT (yet another acronym)

When it comes to standard abreviations/acronyms or aliases they are usually
those understood by people who either work in or study or are interested in
certain subjects/topics.

Anyone can ask what Pl*co means but I bet that most people on this newsgroup
know only too well in much the same way as I know exactly what the
acronyms/abbreviations I just listed mean...(technically) - I would not
necessarily expect anyone else on this NG to know all, if any of them.....

Gill

[Gill Passman]

"Alpha" > wrote in message
...
> OOPs I made a mistake ;)) This is correct:
>
> "The a*r pu*p shou*d b* c*nnected t* t*e in*ake v*lve."
>
>
> "Alpha" > wrote in message news:...
> >
> > "Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
> > .. .
> >>
> >> "Alpha" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> "Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>> .. .
> >>> >
> >>> > "spiral_72" > wrote in message
> >>> > oups.com...
> >>> >> Isn't an UGF useless with large gravel??
> >>> >>
> >>> >> stupid question: Why does everyone refer to Plecos as Pl*co?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Stupidity and superstitious behavior (see Skinner for both).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> You can say that....but in reality what difference does it make if
> >> someone
> >> types Pleco or Pl*co?
> >>
> >> Everyone knows what they mean....
> >>
> >
> > No they don't ... see the OP. Try getting a job where you invent
changes
> > such as this in your correspondence or technical writing.
> >
> > ">
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

Nope, you still made a mistake....only the vowels should be missing :-)

[Elaine T]

Alpha wrote:
> "Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>"Alpha" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
.. .
>>>
>>>>"spiral_72" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>
>>>>>Isn't an UGF useless with large gravel??
>>>>>
>>>>>stupid question: Why does everyone refer to Plecos as Pl*co?
>>>
>>>
>>>Stupidity and superstitious behavior (see Skinner for both).
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You can say that....but in reality what difference does it make if someone
>>types Pleco or Pl*co?
>>
>>Everyone knows what they mean....
>>
>
>
> No they don't ... see the OP. Try getting a job where you invent changes
> such as this in your correspondence or technical writing.
>
> "The a*r pu*p shou*d b* c*onnected t* t*e in*ake v*lve."
>
>
Fine. But don't come crying to us when your pl*co dies. ;-)

--
Elaine T __
http://eethomp.com/fish.html <'__><
rec.aquaria.* FAQ http://faq.thekrib.com

[Alpha]

"Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Alpha" > wrote in message
> ...
>> OOPs I made a mistake ;)) This is correct:
>>
>> "The a*r pu*p shou*d b* c*nnected t* t*e in*ake v*lve."
>>
>>
>> "Alpha" > wrote in message news:...
>> >
>> > "Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > .. .
>> >>
>> >> "Alpha" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>>
>> >>> "Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >>> .. .
>> >>> >
>> >>> > "spiral_72" > wrote in message
>> >>> > oups.com...
>> >>> >> Isn't an UGF useless with large gravel??
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> stupid question: Why does everyone refer to Plecos as Pl*co?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Stupidity and superstitious behavior (see Skinner for both).
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> You can say that....but in reality what difference does it make if
>> >> someone
>> >> types Pleco or Pl*co?
>> >>
>> >> Everyone knows what they mean....
>> >>
>> >
>> > No they don't ... see the OP. Try getting a job where you invent
> changes
>> > such as this in your correspondence or technical writing.
>> >
>> > ">
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
> Nope, you still made a mistake....only the vowels should be missing :-)
>
>

That depends on the re-write rule .....

In any case, Pl*co is plain St*p*d.

[Alpha]

"Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Alpha" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >
>> > "Alpha" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> .. .
>> >> >
>> >> > "spiral_72" > wrote in message
>> >> > oups.com...
>> >> >> Isn't an UGF useless with large gravel??
>> >> >>
>> >> >> stupid question: Why does everyone refer to Plecos as Pl*co?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Stupidity and superstitious behavior (see Skinner for both).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > You can say that....but in reality what difference does it make if
> someone
>> > types Pleco or Pl*co?
>> >
>> > Everyone knows what they mean....
>> >
>>
>> No they don't ... see the OP. Try getting a job where you invent changes
>> such as this in your correspondence or technical writing.
>>
>> "The a*r pu*p shou*d b* c*onnected t* t*e in*ake v*lve."
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>>
> OK....so look at the following:-
>
> 24x7x365
> WAN
> LAN
> WAP
> SMS - has at least 3 different meanings as far as I am aware - I could
> list
> them if I could be bothered
> HBA
> SCSI
> FDD
> HDD
> BU
> SAN
> FC
> BAB
> BEB
> TL
> ACSLS
> HAM
> CDM
> NDS
> AD


Specious argument. All of these acronyms shorten the message. Pl*co does
not.

[Tedd Jacobs]

"Alpha" wrote...
>
>>
>> There are relatively few absolute truths. Most information is in shades
>> of gray, slowly shifting their aquatic environment to something which is
>> more suitable. The less experience you have, the more useful the
>> guidelines are. Some recommendations are based on their natural
>> environments (which the fish may have never seen or experienced, and fish
>> can't read either). Other recommendations you simply cannot get around
>> (the physics of the nitrogen cycle, or depletion of your buffer).
>>
>> One of the best tools is observation, watching for changes in behaviour,
>> color etc. Assess any new information you hear or read against what you
>> are doing now and use your discretion as to how much and how fast to
>> implement it. Familiarize yourself with what causes stress to fish, so
>> that you can safely experiment a little.
>> --
>> www.NetMax.tk
>>
>
> These two paragraphs should be published. When so many variables are
> involved, as in reducing an ecosystem to a millionth of the original,
> prediction and science are merely starting points.

just about everything Netmax writes should be published. ;-)

--
Fading into the dark recesses of phylosophical thought-
I always liked recess.

[NetMax]

"Tedd Jacobs" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Alpha" wrote...
>>
>>>
>>> There are relatively few absolute truths. Most information is in
>>> shades of gray, slowly shifting their aquatic environment to
>>> something which is more suitable. The less experience you have, the
>>> more useful the guidelines are. Some recommendations are based on
>>> their natural environments (which the fish may have never seen or
>>> experienced, and fish can't read either). Other recommendations you
>>> simply cannot get around (the physics of the nitrogen cycle, or
>>> depletion of your buffer).
>>>
>>> One of the best tools is observation, watching for changes in
>>> behaviour, color etc. Assess any new information you hear or read
>>> against what you are doing now and use your discretion as to how much
>>> and how fast to implement it. Familiarize yourself with what causes
>>> stress to fish, so that you can safely experiment a little.
>>> --
>>> www.NetMax.tk
>>>
>>
>> These two paragraphs should be published. When so many variables are
>> involved, as in reducing an ecosystem to a millionth of the original,
>> prediction and science are merely starting points.
>
> just about everything Netmax writes should be published. ;-)
>
> --
> Fading into the dark recesses of phylosophical thought-
> I always liked recess.


If I ever go to print, can I use Alpha's line :
"When so many variables are involved, as in reducing an ecosystem to a
millionth of the original, prediction and science are merely starting
points."
.... now * that's * prosaic!
--
www.NetMax.tk

[coolchinchilla]

Alpha wrote:
>
> That depends on the re-write rule .....
>
> In any case, Pl*co is plain St*p*d.

Alpha, what's the harm? Why are you so bothered by this spelling
convention? You asked what it meant and you found out. It is a
superstition (albeit a silly superstition) that arose years ago as
part of the internet culture for aquarists. I've seen it spelled
"pl*co" it in plenty of other forums. I find it amusing. If you
find it annoying, then just chill ... ok?

My 2 cents.
coolchinchilla

[Alpha]

"coolchinchilla" > wrote in message
...
> Alpha wrote:
>>
>> That depends on the re-write rule .....
>>
>> In any case, Pl*co is plain St*p*d.
>
> Alpha, what's the harm? Why are you so bothered by this spelling
> convention? You asked what it meant and you found out.

Wrong. I have known this nonsense for decades.

>It is a superstition (albeit a silly superstition) that arose years ago as
>part of the internet culture for aquarists. I've seen it spelled "pl*co"
>it in plenty of other forums. I find it amusing. If you find it annoying,
>then just chill ... ok?

[spiral_72]

It's interesting how one little question can cause that big'a
reaction...

Oh, thanks for the explination.

[Gazoo0]

Alpha wrote:

>
> "coolchinchilla" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Alpha wrote:
>>>
>>> That depends on the re-write rule .....
>>>
>>> In any case, Pl*co is plain St*p*d.
>>
>> Alpha, what's the harm? Why are you so bothered by this spelling
>> convention? You asked what it meant and you found out.
>
> Wrong. I have known this nonsense for decades.
>
>>It is a superstition (albeit a silly superstition) that arose years ago as
>>part of the internet culture for aquarists. I've seen it spelled "pl*co"
>>it in plenty of other forums. I find it amusing. If you find it
>>annoying, then just chill ... ok?


I vote Amusing. I think it shows affection for a group of fish, which seem
to have a unique personality. Harmless fun :oD

Ross T

[Rene Brehmer]

Documented research indicate that on Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:40:06 +0100, Gill
Passman wrote:

> "Alpha" > wrote in message
> ...
[snip]
>> Stupidity and superstitious behavior (see Skinner for both).
>
> You can say that....but in reality what difference does it make if someone
> types Pleco or Pl*co?
>
> Everyone knows what they mean....

Pointlessly altering the proper spelling of a word serves no other purpose
than to make the poster seem more "hip" to himself (or is it called down
these days?). It's just as stupid as the teens (or older youngsters that
try to act younger) that insist on using numbers and every other
non-alphabetical symbol on the keyboard instead of the proper letters in a
word (also known as l33t). Is it really that much to ask that everyone
spells everything the way it's meant to be spelled so that even the
uninitiated can be aware of what's actually being said ?

Oh, and Pl*co is actually slower to type than Pleco... nomatter how used
you are at typing it ...

Personally I find it aggrevating that people online insist on purposely
obfuscated words for no proper reason whatsoever. Shortening often used
terms and words to shorten the amount of text needed to determine the
meaning of a post is one thing, but pointlessly replacing letters with
symbols for no other reason than it actually being possible is not really a
sign of intelligence at work.

--
Rene Brehmer
aka Metalbunny

We have nothing to fear from free speech and free information on the
Internet, but pop-up advertising!

http://metalbunny.net/
My little mess of things...

[Rene Brehmer]

Documented research indicate that on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:11:44 -0500,
coolchinchilla wrote:

> Alpha wrote:
>>
>> That depends on the re-write rule .....
>>
>> In any case, Pl*co is plain St*p*d.
>
> Alpha, what's the harm? Why are you so bothered by this spelling
> convention? You asked what it meant and you found out. It is a
> superstition (albeit a silly superstition) that arose years ago as
> part of the internet culture for aquarists. I've seen it spelled
> "pl*co" it in plenty of other forums. I find it amusing. If you
> find it annoying, then just chill ... ok?

Alpha can write for himself ... but ... pointless degradation of the
language is something to consider. Coming from the IT scene, a * in a word
means that the word covers multiple different words with different
spellings, that yet still describe the same basic concept. This is not so
with pl*co, although I have seen fish stores write placo instead of pleco
(albeit I do believe that plac is something you have on your teeth if you
don't brush often enough).
--
Rene Brehmer
aka Metalbunny

We have nothing to fear from free speech and free information on the
Internet, but pop-up advertising!

http://metalbunny.net/
My little mess of things...

[Tedd Jacobs]

"Rene Brehmer" wrote...
> Documented research indicate that on Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:40:06 +0100, Gill
> Passman wrote:
>
>> "Alpha" > wrote in message
>> ...
> [snip]
>>> Stupidity and superstitious behavior (see Skinner for both).
>>
>> You can say that....but in reality what difference does it make if
>> someone
>> types Pleco or Pl*co?
>>
>> Everyone knows what they mean....
>
> Pointlessly altering the proper spelling of a word serves no other purpose
> than to make the poster seem more "hip" to himself (or is it called down
> these days?). It's just as stupid as the teens (or older youngsters that
> try to act younger) that insist on using numbers and every other
> non-alphabetical symbol on the keyboard instead of the proper letters in a
> word (also known as l33t). Is it really that much to ask that everyone
> spells everything the way it's meant to be spelled so that even the
> uninitiated can be aware of what's actually being said ?
>
> Oh, and Pl*co is actually slower to type than Pleco... nomatter how used
> you are at typing it ...
>
> Personally I find it aggrevating that people online insist on purposely
> obfuscated words for no proper reason whatsoever. Shortening often used
> terms and words to shorten the amount of text needed to determine the
> meaning of a post is one thing, but pointlessly replacing letters with
> symbols for no other reason than it actually being possible is not really
> a
> sign of intelligence at work.

it's a rec. group, lighten up.

t*dd.

--
How does one infer human behavior through studying the color of artic sea
water?

[Elaine T]

Rene Brehmer wrote:
> Documented research indicate that on Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:40:06 +0100, Gill
> Passman wrote:
>
>
>>"Alpha" > wrote in message
...
>
> [snip]
>
>>>Stupidity and superstitious behavior (see Skinner for both).
>>
>>You can say that....but in reality what difference does it make if someone
>>types Pleco or Pl*co?
>>
>>Everyone knows what they mean....
>
>
> Pointlessly altering the proper spelling of a word serves no other purpose
> than to make the poster seem more "hip" to himself (or is it called down
> these days?). It's just as stupid as the teens (or older youngsters that
> try to act younger) that insist on using numbers and every other
> non-alphabetical symbol on the keyboard instead of the proper letters in a
> word (also known as l33t). Is it really that much to ask that everyone
> spells everything the way it's meant to be spelled so that even the
> uninitiated can be aware of what's actually being said ?
>
> Oh, and Pl*co is actually slower to type than Pleco... nomatter how used
> you are at typing it ...
>
> Personally I find it aggrevating that people online insist on purposely
> obfuscated words for no proper reason whatsoever. Shortening often used
> terms and words to shorten the amount of text needed to determine the
> meaning of a post is one thing, but pointlessly replacing letters with
> symbols for no other reason than it actually being possible is not really a
> sign of intelligence at work.
>
If you want to seem intelligent, you might correct the grammer in your
cutesy little attribution line.

--
Elaine T __
http://eethomp.com/fish.html <'__><
rec.aquaria.* FAQ http://faq.thekrib.com

[coolchinchilla]

Tedd Jacobs wrote:
>>but pointlessly replacing letters with
>>symbols for no other reason than it actually being possible is not really
>>a sign of intelligence at work.
>
>
> it's a rec. group, lighten up.
>
> t*dd.

:-) Very true. I was going to write a small essay about language
flexibility and language evolution. But I decided that a newsgroup
about aquaria wasn't really that interested in the panderings of a
linguistics major.

So no problem. :)

c**lch*nch*ll*

[Gill Passman]

"Rene Brehmer" > wrote in message
...
> Documented research indicate that on Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:40:06 +0100, Gill
> Passman wrote:
>
> > "Alpha" > wrote in message
> > ...
> [snip]
> >> Stupidity and superstitious behavior (see Skinner for both).
> >
> > You can say that....but in reality what difference does it make if
someone
> > types Pleco or Pl*co?
> >
> > Everyone knows what they mean....
>
> Pointlessly altering the proper spelling of a word serves no other purpose
> than to make the poster seem more "hip" to himself (or is it called down
> these days?). It's just as stupid as the teens (or older youngsters that
> try to act younger) that insist on using numbers and every other
> non-alphabetical symbol on the keyboard instead of the proper letters in a
> word (also known as l33t). Is it really that much to ask that everyone
> spells everything the way it's meant to be spelled so that even the
> uninitiated can be aware of what's actually being said ?
>
> Oh, and Pl*co is actually slower to type than Pleco... nomatter how used
> you are at typing it ...
>
> Personally I find it aggrevating that people online insist on purposely
> obfuscated words for no proper reason whatsoever. Shortening often used
> terms and words to shorten the amount of text needed to determine the
> meaning of a post is one thing, but pointlessly replacing letters with
> symbols for no other reason than it actually being possible is not really
a
> sign of intelligence at work.
>
> --
> Rene Brehmer
> aka Metalbunny
>
> We have nothing to fear from free speech and free information on the
> Internet, but pop-up advertising!
>
> http://metalbunny.net/
> My little mess of things...

OK if it pleases the minority I can refer to my fish as Plecostomus - far
longer to type than Pl*co, or by their L numbers or by their common names -
eg Queen Arabesque (but very few people would know what I mean if I do
either of the latter two). Alternatively, I can use the English abbreviation
of Plec.....

Really, I'm amazed at how strongly people feel about the use of an
asterix....I presume that you do not object to such things as LOL?

Gill

BTW you made an assumption in your post that I am male? Why?

[Derek Benson]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 00:12:36 -0500, coolchinchilla
> wrote:

>Tedd Jacobs wrote:
>>>but pointlessly replacing letters with
>>>symbols for no other reason than it actually being possible is not really
>>>a sign of intelligence at work.
>>
>>
>> it's a rec. group, lighten up.
>>
>> t*dd.
>
>:-) Very true. I was going to write a small essay about language
>flexibility and language evolution. But I decided that a newsgroup
>about aquaria wasn't really that interested in the panderings of a
>linguistics major.
>
>So no problem. :)
>
>c**lch*nch*ll*

I almost have to side with Rene and Alpha in this all-important
Earth-shattering question, and you and Tedd have illustrated with the
signing of your names the reason why. If this * stuff is acceptable,
and it spreads like a virus throughout the Internett, and then the
World, in a few months time I'll be signing my name everywhere like
this: D*rek, or possibly like this: ***Ek, or possibly: **Rek, so
then people will be saying to me: "Hi Drek, how's it going" or "Hey
Eck, haven't heard from you for awhile" or "Where have you been,
Wreck?" And this fate may be foisted upon me if all you Pl*co People
have your way!

;-) Derek

[Rene Brehmer]

Documented research indicate that on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:45:07 +0100, Gill
Passman wrote:

> OK if it pleases the minority I can refer to my fish as Plecostomus - far
> longer to type than Pl*co, or by their L numbers or by their common names -
> eg Queen Arabesque (but very few people would know what I mean if I do
> either of the latter two). Alternatively, I can use the English abbreviation
> of Plec.....

Personally I'd say call it whatever you want. But using symbols in place of
letters doesn't serve any useful purpose that I can think off, except for
forums where it's the only way to use certain words despite of word
censurship.

> Really, I'm amazed at how strongly people feel about the use of an
> asterix....I presume that you do not object to such things as LOL?

No ... but that's an abbreviation. Pl*c isn't.

> BTW you made an assumption in your post that I am male? Why?

I didn't. I wasn't talking about you. Merely meant any poster that does the
strange letter for symbol replacement. It's just easier writing "himself"
and "him" than "him/herself" and "him/her" all the time. I used to write
"itself" but it seemed to upset people even more than just leaving out the
one gender.

And the reason why I do himself rather than herself is mostly because of
habit ... >70% of people online are male.

I'm sorry if you felt personally referenced by my post, that was not my
intention.
--
Rene Brehmer
aka Metalbunny

We have nothing to fear from free speech and free information on the
Internet, but pop-up advertising!

http://metalbunny.net/
My little mess of things...

[Rocco Moretti]

Rene Brehmer wrote:
> Documented research indicate that on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:11:44 -0500,
> coolchinchilla wrote:
>
>
>>Alpha wrote:
>>
>>>That depends on the re-write rule .....
>>>
>>>In any case, Pl*co is plain St*p*d.
>>
>>Alpha, what's the harm? Why are you so bothered by this spelling
>>convention? You asked what it meant and you found out. It is a
>>superstition (albeit a silly superstition) that arose years ago as
>>part of the internet culture for aquarists. I've seen it spelled
>>"pl*co" it in plenty of other forums. I find it amusing. If you
>>find it annoying, then just chill ... ok?
>
>
> Alpha can write for himself ... but ... pointless degradation of the
> language is something to consider.

I don't care one way or another which way Plecostomus is abbreviated - I
don't have one, and even if I did, how I spelled it in a newsgroup
wouldn't matter one bit. That said, I don't think the issue is
"pointless degradation of the language."

Consider this - Every winter thousands to millions of people worldwide
hike out in the middle of the forest, hack down a tree, drag it back to
the house and reerect the dead tree carcass inside their house, only to
tear it down and throw it away a month later. Some of these people even
take this flammable tree (inside, no less!) and light candles on it.

Yeah, it's a Christmas tree. From an outside view, it makes no sense
whatsoever. So why do we do it? Tradition. Pure rationalists may decry
traditions as "superstitions", but they do serve a purpose - they help
to build community. It is in this light I see the whole pl*co thing.
It's a benign tradition that builds cohesion within the aquaria
newsgroups, and most importantly, anyone can participate in it. It's not
some hidden mystery only the elites are indoctronated in - it's
mentioned in the FAQ. (That's "Frequently Asked Questions", for the
abbreviation adverse ;) http://faq.thekrib.com/

[Rene Brehmer]

Documented research indicate that on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 00:12:36 -0500,
coolchinchilla wrote:

> :-) Very true. I was going to write a small essay about language
> flexibility and language evolution. But I decided that a newsgroup
> about aquaria wasn't really that interested in the panderings of a
> linguistics major.

Language evolves faster on the Internet than a guppy can spawn. But it's
not always in a desirable direction.

Anyhow, way OT, so let's just drop it.

What's a chinchilla doing in a fish group anyway ?

--
Rene Brehmer
aka Metalbunny

We have nothing to fear from free speech and free information on the
Internet, but pop-up advertising!

http://metalbunny.net/
My little mess of things...

[Gill Passman]

"Rocco Moretti" > wrote in message
...
> Rene Brehmer wrote:
> > Documented research indicate that on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:11:44 -0500,
> > coolchinchilla wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Alpha wrote:
> >>
> >>>That depends on the re-write rule .....
> >>>
> >>>In any case, Pl*co is plain St*p*d.
> >>
> >>Alpha, what's the harm? Why are you so bothered by this spelling
> >>convention? You asked what it meant and you found out. It is a
> >>superstition (albeit a silly superstition) that arose years ago as
> >>part of the internet culture for aquarists. I've seen it spelled
> >>"pl*co" it in plenty of other forums. I find it amusing. If you
> >>find it annoying, then just chill ... ok?
> >
> >
> > Alpha can write for himself ... but ... pointless degradation of the
> > language is something to consider.
>
> I don't care one way or another which way Plecostomus is abbreviated - I
> don't have one, and even if I did, how I spelled it in a newsgroup
> wouldn't matter one bit. That said, I don't think the issue is
> "pointless degradation of the language."
>
> Consider this - Every winter thousands to millions of people worldwide
> hike out in the middle of the forest, hack down a tree, drag it back to
> the house and reerect the dead tree carcass inside their house, only to
> tear it down and throw it away a month later. Some of these people even
> take this flammable tree (inside, no less!) and light candles on it.
>
> Yeah, it's a Christmas tree. From an outside view, it makes no sense
> whatsoever. So why do we do it? Tradition. Pure rationalists may decry
> traditions as "superstitions", but they do serve a purpose - they help
> to build community. It is in this light I see the whole pl*co thing.
> It's a benign tradition that builds cohesion within the aquaria
> newsgroups, and most importantly, anyone can participate in it. It's not
> some hidden mystery only the elites are indoctronated in - it's
> mentioned in the FAQ. (That's "Frequently Asked Questions", for the
> abbreviation adverse ;) http://faq.thekrib.com/

I love the wording on that - LOL

[Rene Brehmer]

Documented research indicate that on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:57:59 -0500, Rocco
Moretti wrote:

> Yeah, it's a Christmas tree. From an outside view, it makes no sense
> whatsoever. So why do we do it? Tradition. Pure rationalists may decry
> traditions as "superstitions", but they do serve a purpose - they help
> to build community. It is in this light I see the whole pl*co thing.
> It's a benign tradition that builds cohesion within the aquaria
> newsgroups, and most importantly, anyone can participate in it. It's not
> some hidden mystery only the elites are indoctronated in - it's
> mentioned in the FAQ. (That's "Frequently Asked Questions", for the
> abbreviation adverse ;) http://faq.thekrib.com/

It's only benign until it spreads. That's the difference between an
infection and an epidemic. Or a lump and cancer.

It's the same thing with smilies, compressing files, listening to MP3s,
renting video or watching TV. It used to be something reserved for the few,
now it's something nearly everyone do.

Continued use of a concept or way of spelling will eventually make its way
into common language and from there it's just a matter of time before
everyone comes up with their own pattern of pointlessly replacing letters
with symbols.

It's no different than the morons that use LOL and ROFL in spoken language
instead of normal words. The Internet has changed how we see the world and
how we come by information, it's meant an incredible influx of
abbreviations, slang words, and common misspellings. It's only a matter of
time before a silly trend of typing pl*co instead of pleco become the
normal way.

Abbreviations and smilies serve a specific purpose, using symbols in place
of letters don't.
--
Rene Brehmer
aka Metalbunny

We have nothing to fear from free speech and free information on the
Internet, but pop-up advertising!

http://metalbunny.net/
My little mess of things...

[Tedd Jacobs]

"Rene Brehmer" wrote...
<snip>
> Abbreviations and smilies serve a specific purpose, using symbols in place
> of letters don't.

this less than an hour after you suggested "way OT, so let's just drop."

this is a rec. group, for 'recreation'. if you wish to participate in a
discussion of the 'degression of modern language' allow me to reccomend
sci.language. but as for the rest of us, here it is generally more frowned
upon to stoke the beginings of a flame war based upon the criticism of the
recreational habits of the participants. in other words; it's not your forum
for venting over, or criticing the use of a *. and for what its worth,...
abreviations and smilies are only symbols. as are the letters you type.
language in and of itself is only a symbolic representation of a reified
abstract applied to reality.



--
1. A -> B
2. B -> C
3. ~A -> ~C .: C <-> A

[coolchinchilla]

Off topic: Ok everyone ... the panderings of a linguistics major
here...

Rene Brehmer wrote:
>
> Continued use of a concept or way of spelling will eventually make its way
> into common language

Yes. This is true. But that is how language grows and evolves. We
come up with new words and new meanings to words to describe new
technology and new experiences. Also each generation has something
of a subculture which needs new words to go with it. Some words of
the youthful generation "trickle up" so they come into common usage.
Some youth language falls away with maturity and some die when
that generation dies.

Ok examples:
Words for new technology: computer, chartroom, cell phone, stealth
bomber. Think of the words developed for past technology:
telephone, automobile, television, microwave. Some words
essentially fall out of usage as the technology becomes obsolete:
wheelwright, smith, cobbler.

Words for new experiences or products: 911, gay, happy meals,
beanie babies.

Words that "trickle up" into common language: NOT! (as in I love
dogs. NOT!), 24/7, cool (can be spelled kewl), dis (as in "He dissed
the officer" -disrespected).

Words that have dropped out of usage that were originally from a
youth culture: groovy, swell, cute as a bee's knees, the cat's
pajamas, a dapper chap,

> and from there it's just a matter of time before
> everyone comes up with their own pattern of pointlessly replacing letters
> with symbols.

Replacing letters with symbols has a purpose in some applications.
In some forums there are censors which prevent posts with
obscenities or profanity in them. By using symbols in the word you
bypass the censors. For example if you write "John is an ass" the
censor refuses to post the message until you change the questionable
word. But if you write "John is an @ss" it gets posted.

Another usage of symbols in profane words works as an equivalent to
saying "Pardon my French" after you verbally swear. So in "G-d D-mn
it", the writer is using the symbols to express their emotion yet
being sensitive to others who might be offended by it.

> The Internet has changed how we see the world and
> how we come by information, it's meant an incredible influx of
> abbreviations, slang words, and common misspellings.

Yes, the Internet has changed language usage tremendously. Slang is
ok because some slang (such as "24/7", "cool", "my bad", "newbie")
become an accepted part of spoken language. That's how language
changes and evolves. The common misspellings are a constant
irritation to me. I wish people would get "there," "they're," and
"their" right. Some times it takes me a while to comprehend some
things like "cu l8er" ("see you later") but the symbols and goofy
spelling does make it faster to type.

Besides, most young people play with language. Did anyone here use
"pig Latin" when they were a kid? Weren't you thrilled when your
parents didn't understand what you were saying? Why not play with
language in chat rooms and IMs using symbols and abbreviations?

> It's only a matter of
> time before a silly trend of typing pl*co instead of pleco become the
> normal way.

I doubt that such "silly trends" will make it into regular written
text. Sure symbols in words might become more common in casual
writing such as email, newsgroup posts, IMs, text messages. Casual
writing reflects casual speech but casual writing won't influence
formal writing that much. For example, how many times in
advertising have you seen the word "nite" in place of "night"? Yet
in a front page newspaper article you will never see "nite." That
"misspelling" hasn't gotten into regular written English and it's
been around for decades.

My point is two fold: (1) Parts of language grow and evolve while
other parts die off. It is very difficult to freeze a language.
The French try to but it isn't easy. (2) The written form of
English is a very strong unifying force. I suspect that the symbols
in words will not influence the written form (e.g. newspaper
article) that much.

>
> Abbreviations and smilies serve a specific purpose, using symbols in place
> of letters don't.

I respectfully disagree. Symbols in place of letters is a means of
expression for a section of English speakers. It must communicate
something otherwise it wouldn't be used. YMMV

My long winded 2 cents. :-)
coolchinchilla

[Dick]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:19:38 -0600, "Tedd Jacobs"
> wrote:

>
>"Rene Brehmer" wrote...
><snip>
>> Abbreviations and smilies serve a specific purpose, using symbols in place
>> of letters don't.
>
>this less than an hour after you suggested "way OT, so let's just drop."
>
>this is a rec. group, for 'recreation'. if you wish to participate in a
>discussion of the 'degression of modern language' allow me to reccomend
>sci.language. but as for the rest of us, here it is generally more frowned
>upon to stoke the beginings of a flame war based upon the criticism of the
>recreational habits of the participants. in other words; it's not your forum
>for venting over, or criticing the use of a *. and for what its worth,...
>abreviations and smilies are only symbols. as are the letters you type.
>language in and of itself is only a symbolic representation of a reified
>abstract applied to reality.

Indeed, it is a recreation group. Part of what I enjoy is the relaxed
acceptance of an occaisional wandering. No harm, but often very
enjoyable.

dick

[Dick]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 02:31:38 GMT, Rene Brehmer >
wrote:

>Documented research indicate that on Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:40:06 +0100, Gill
>Passman wrote:
>
>> "Alpha" > wrote in message
>> ...
>[snip]
>>> Stupidity and superstitious behavior (see Skinner for both).
>>
>> You can say that....but in reality what difference does it make if someone
>> types Pleco or Pl*co?
>>
>> Everyone knows what they mean....
>
>Pointlessly altering the proper spelling of a word serves no other purpose
>than to make the poster seem more "hip" to himself (or is it called down
>these days?). It's just as stupid as the teens (or older youngsters that
>try to act younger) that insist on using numbers and every other
>non-alphabetical symbol on the keyboard instead of the proper letters in a
>word (also known as l33t). Is it really that much to ask that everyone
>spells everything the way it's meant to be spelled so that even the
>uninitiated can be aware of what's actually being said ?
>
>Oh, and Pl*co is actually slower to type than Pleco... nomatter how used
>you are at typing it ...
>
>Personally I find it aggrevating that people online insist on purposely
>obfuscated words for no proper reason whatsoever. Shortening often used
>terms and words to shorten the amount of text needed to determine the
>meaning of a post is one thing, but pointlessly replacing letters with
>symbols for no other reason than it actually being possible is not really a
>sign of intelligence at work.


A rose by any other name, still smells sweet! I use "Pleco" because
it is short and I can never get the full spelling correct. I really
enjoy my Plecos so who cares how I spell it?

dick

[Nikki Casali]

Dick wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 02:31:38 GMT, Rene Brehmer >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Documented research indicate that on Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:40:06 +0100, Gill
>>Passman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Alpha" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>Stupidity and superstitious behavior (see Skinner for both).
>>>
>>>You can say that....but in reality what difference does it make if someone
>>>types Pleco or Pl*co?
>>>
>>>Everyone knows what they mean....
>>
>>Pointlessly altering the proper spelling of a word serves no other purpose
>>than to make the poster seem more "hip" to himself (or is it called down
>>these days?). It's just as stupid as the teens (or older youngsters that
>>try to act younger) that insist on using numbers and every other
>>non-alphabetical symbol on the keyboard instead of the proper letters in a
>>word (also known as l33t). Is it really that much to ask that everyone
>>spells everything the way it's meant to be spelled so that even the
>>uninitiated can be aware of what's actually being said ?
>>
>>Oh, and Pl*co is actually slower to type than Pleco... nomatter how used
>>you are at typing it ...
>>
>>Personally I find it aggrevating that people online insist on purposely
>>obfuscated words for no proper reason whatsoever. Shortening often used
>>terms and words to shorten the amount of text needed to determine the
>>meaning of a post is one thing, but pointlessly replacing letters with
>>symbols for no other reason than it actually being possible is not really a
>>sign of intelligence at work.
>
>
>
> A rose by any other name, still smells sweet! I use "Pleco" because
> it is short and I can never get the full spelling correct. I really
> enjoy my Plecos so who cares how I spell it?

Way to go. Superstition is all fine and dandy as long as one isn't
forced into another's belief system by way of persecution. I don't have
any plecos myself, but I do have a lovely bunch of *nc*str*s...

Nikki

[Alpha]

These are good observations. As OT as this might be, I found it
interesting.

What is happening is that technology is driving things like Cul8er into
commonplace....the small keyboards on cell phones and pocket devices may
destroy spelling as we know it. If you think this is not the case, check
out a college term paper today. It is so full of these constructions it is
apparent that students have internalized and made automoatic their use.

[coolchinchilla]

Alpha wrote:
> These are good observations. As OT as this might be, I found it
> interesting.
>
> What is happening is that technology is driving things like Cul8er into
> commonplace....the small keyboards on cell phones and pocket devices may
> destroy spelling as we know it. If you think this is not the case, check
> out a college term paper today. It is so full of these constructions it is
> apparent that students have internalized and made automoatic their use.
>
Very OT:

The college term paper argument is compelling. I agree that casual
writing is forever changed by the Internet and small keyboards. By
misfortune and poor education, college students have internalized
the spellings and can't "code-switch" to conventional written
communication. Somehow we mark the education at the college level
to be the end-state of the person's intellectual interface with the
world. The fact is that the human brain continues to develop until
about age 30. The college students will learn to code-switch. I
still think formal written English (as in a newspaper article) is
fairly safe. Can you imagine a legal document fraught with
text-messaging type spelling? New lawyers will learn to spell it
right, as will novelists, journalists, and textbook editors. Past
generations have decried the degradation of English that new
generations bring yet somehow language hasn't changed that much.

Certainly, the meaning of "gay" will never be what it once was. But
have words like "ain't", "head kahuna", "discombobulated", "groovy"
"ping", "hanging out", "my bad" and "NOT!" come into the newspapers?
Yet they are/were used all the time in casual speech and writing.

For my 2 cents, I'm predicting that the new generation will
eventually learn to "code-switch" their written language much like
we all code-switch spoken & written language when we are in
different situations. For example, our spoken language is likely to
be very different when we are at a party than when we are at a job
interview. I'm sure in the 60's people were horrified at the casual
attitude and language the college students had. Yet somehow those
students interviewed for jobs successfully so they must have learned
to code-switch their spoken language. Somehow they kept formal
written language intact because we don't have "groovy" "hippie"
"drug culture" type writing around. Plenty of people were horrified
at the long-hair guys of the 60s. I imagine there were articles
about how long-hairs would rip the culture apart. Then for some
reason, the guys cut their hair short again. This is not to say
that that generation abandoned their culture. I just mean that the
written form of the language was largely unchanged by them.

A new normal will come from text-messaging spelling but in the end
it won't be dramatically different from the status quo.

My 2 cents.
coolchinchilla