You don’t think a social life composed of 15-word utterances is deleterious to the arts of oral communication? Do you hold conversations in which everything you say can be said in 15 words or less? Do you write e-mail like that to your friends? I can hardly believe it, but if it’s really true I can only imagine that you are a dramatically visual person who communicates mainly through body language and enjoys the stimulation of painting, silent film, and/or instrumental music. Because no one could enjoy a conversation chopped into 15 word sections. Try writing one as a creative writing assignment! Than look at your response here again.

At the same time, we live in an incredibly complex world which requires seriously deep investigation and thought to understand even a portion of it, while our attention spans for comprehension are being atrophied from without.

Twitter is just one of many outward signs of this internal disintegration. Like any tool, it has potentially positive uses. But overall, it is another venue for people to condition themselves to shortening their attention spans even faster.

To the Walter/Chuck debacle, I’d say that trying to create politics-free discussions (or even believing that such things are truly possible) is a particular political position. I think that Chuck’s mention of the former president’s lack of linguistic skill–if it was that, and not simply a clever rhetorical move–is relevant, if only tangentially, to the topic under discussion. But, as I read it, I knew he would probably catch flack for it. And, when you’re trying to convince other people of your point, handing them ammunition to fire back at you isn’t often a wise rhetorical maneuver. In short, there’s some truth to what each of them has put forth. And I’ll back away from that now, lest I draw some fire myself.

I’m glad you got my point – just like the kids who insist on using Valley-speak, or text-speak, or profanity when it isn’t appropriate, I was distracted by your inclusion of politics in a discussion which had, until then, been delightfully party neutral and politics free.

I stand by my statement. Don’t insist on making this personal.

As a personal peeve, people like Chuck above also kill their argument when they can’t help but tie every discussion to their personal politics: blame the president, blame the Jews, blame global warming. Please, if your argument was stronger (either argument) you wouldn’t have to try to bundle them together like sticks. Rather than making your argument stronger it just muddles and sidetracks the discussion.

You probably quickly arrive at a decision on the worthiness of a writer’s point of view based on how thoroughly they butcher their spelling, word choices and grammar. If you have come this far in this current long list of comments, you undoubtedly have weighed many on the usage scale and found their opinions, and possibly their writers, lightweight. Maybe in a Twitter environment, wherein the informal “all about me” between friends condones shortcuts, it is acceptable. Just about everywhere else where the written word is used to educate, inform, motivate or persuade, successful communication requires a higher standard. The educator who understands this will provide an invaluable service to students.

My concern leans less toward the break down, or disintegration of language (written or oral), but more towards the notion that the texting/twitting generation won’t make crucial distinctions of “when” which type of communication is appropriate to the audience or venue. I have actually been present in an interview where the person being interviewed turned to her interviewers as she was exiting the room and stated: “TTFN”. This is economically detrimental to this individual’s personal success and economic well being (because she did not get the job for which she may have been equally qualified as another individual who knew enough to not speak “text” to a room full of University Deans). Which on a larger scale will ultimately determine successes & failures in and of a global market economy (and GNP) that this individual must participate in.

Another instance comes from my wife’s place of employment where they write extremely high-value insurance policies dealing with millions of dollars every hour…my implication being that clear & concise exchanging of information between employees and other offices in other states is critical in order to not waste corporate time, or your client’s money. Yet this does not seem to deter some members of the e-generation from emailing other corporate-type folks who may be in their 40’s & 50’s, statements (if you can really call it that) such as: “AFK”. I am, and have been, a network administrator for 20 years and even *I* didn’t know that “AFK” is online gaming terminology for “Away from keyboard”. This person has been warned about the inappropriateness of these types of communications skills in the workplace, but she persists in a manner that one is inclined to interpret as she believes that “she can’t help it”…which of course is complete B.S. (imho).

Cute & catchy? Are you “in with the in-crowd”? Yes. Appropriate to the audience or venue? Not even in the ballpark, and you don’t even know it. Is it going to move you, your job and your economy (personal as well as nationwide) forward? Doubtful. Might it deter those efforts? It already has, at least in the two aforementioned examples. Want another?

Do you remember the Northwestern University women’s lacrosse team showing up at the White House to meet then-President Bush…and three-quarters of them were wearing flip-flops? Same evolution. Little or no concept of audience or venue appropriateness is becoming common-place, yet not “accepted” by most upper echelons of society. I for one, believe that this behavior will have longer-term and almost imperceptible consequences for the economic well being of the younger and future generations of this country if they are largely unable to make these critical distinctions.

Just my 2 cents.

And oh!…BTW…the TTFN gal was also wearing flip-flops!