There have been a few complaints in the comment section about the texting shorthand used in my Shock: Inside the Healthcare Bill post. What you commenters need to do is catch up with the future. Or to be much more accurate, the past. The young are using shorthand now to text, but the dean of economic newsletter writing, Harry Schultz, has been using an abbreviated shorthand for, my guess, more than 30 years. The abbreviations U and IMO, for example, are Schultz originals.
Here's a list by WSJ of what current day texters are using in an attempt to catch up to Schultz:
UG2BK . . . . . . . You got to be kidding
GBTW. . . . . . . . Get back to work
NMP . . . . . . . . . Not my problem
PIR . . . . . . . . . . Parent in room
GFTD. . . . . . . . . Gone for the day
FYEO. . . . . . . . . For your eyes only
BI5 . . . . . . . . . . Back in five minutes
DEGT . . . . . . . . Don’t even go there
BIL . . . . . Boss is listening
PAW. . . . Parents are watching
99 . . . . . . Parents are no longer watching
PCM . . . . Please call me
IMS. . . . . I am sorry
TOY. . . . . Thinking of you
KUTGW. . Keep up the good work
CID . . . . . Consider it done
FWIW. . . For what it’s worth
HAND . . . Have a nice day
IAT . . . . . I am tired
NRN . . . . No response necessary
4COL. . . . For crying out loud
WRUD. . . What are you doing
LMIRL. . . Let’s meet in real life
^5 . . . . . . High five
Being in favour of Government bailouts is also very much en vogue, but does not make it right.
ReplyDeleteAesthestically, I absolutely detest this kind of thing. You're free to use it, of course, but it's silly, and defeats the purpose of language.
I understand why one would use this kind of abbreviations in SMS, but why on a blog where one has no technical limitations on the lengths of once message? What the use of such 'abbreviations' tells me is that either the person who writes it is too lazy to touch-type, or is trying too hard to be avantgarde. Both is, of course, annoying.
You are better than that.
(I won't stop reading your blog because of it, mind you - it's not even remotely as annoying as the religious mania on some other blog I used to read.)
When have you ever seen me use this at EPJ?
ReplyDeleteThe only time I used it was when I copied Peter Fleckstein's comments directly, which first appeared on Twitter.
As for Harry Schultz he did most of his writing pre-internet so he had real space limitations. I would venture to guess you got 75% more commentary from Schultz because he used abbreviations.
Robert, I never said I saw you use it. I was merely trying to say that if you were to use it, it would be silly, but I would still read your blog :)
ReplyDeleteSorry for the lack of clarity.
Keep up the good work (and I had a good giggle at the BS data comment)