Yeah, I knew there was a risk of offending sentient letter-number posters.
At this very moment, though, look at the relevant Pit thread-starters - Themis00, Naxox dec.2002 and wmulax93, all guilty of blithering or whining (or both simultaneously).
It’ll take a lot of search time to document this connection for my PhD thesis, but it’s worth it if it leads to a big-time academic gig (and I’ll have footnotes for all the exceptions that prove the rule :D).
I’d rather read posts with good content that have proper spelling and grammar. Quite frankly, a post’s content is somewhat invalidated by excessive/habitual bad grammar and spelling. It makes the person seem to be a rather dim bulb and anything they say is then colored by that perception.
I’m neither Jack nor sir, but I’ll take a stab at this one anyway.
I noticed this back on AOL many years ago–stupid people tended to have names like john2563. When you try to create a screenname on AOL, if it’s already taken, it will shorten it and add random numbers at the end as a suggestion. It also had a space to try a different name. I questioned a number of these alphanumeric people on why their names was like that and they said “that is what AOL gave me.” They were so unobservant/stupid that they didn’t see the clearly marked box right there that let you try another name.
I’ve noticed a few things on the web that do the same thing.
Anyway, when I see a name like that, I assume that they tried to create a real name, were given a suggestion, and lacking the clue that they didn’t have to accept it, they took that as their name. That, or they simply didn’t care, which doesn’t bode well either.
This isn’t to say that there are no intentional letter+number names, just that the statistics are skewed in that “nimrod” direction by scenarios like I have explained.
psssssssssssssst it’s there’RE exceptions, as in there are exceptions not there is exceptions…
sorry, couldn’t stop myself.
oh, stop it 
Did I just read that Themis00 wants to be judged on the content of his/her posts? That’s like Emmanuel Lewis demanding to be judged based solely on his physical stature…
Somehow “there’re” seems awkward… is it really used in writing? (versus writing out “there are”)
Yes, Opal, in extremely informal writing, as for example reportage of spoken dialogue in a casual setting.
There are some bizarre but legitimate English forms, as for example “the Moseses’s” (if you subscribe to the school that makes plural possessives in “-(e)s’s” rather than ending with the apostrophe. (Which makes me go bleeah, but that’s personal.)
Ok. I’d just never seen it. (Spoken it, yes, but never actually seen it written down.)
To tell you the truth? I don’t believe it is used, even if it might be “correct”. At least not in technical writing, which is what I do as part of my job.
But I wasn’t reaaaaallycorrecting him, just being silly and smartalecky,lol.
but, “there’s” before a plural certainly isn’t correct, even though it’s “passed into common usage” as the saying goes.
Well, tech. writing is a subset of formal English – the “proper usage” we all learned in school that eschews contractions, says that forms of “to be” are followed by nominative rather than objective pronouns (“It is I”), and so on. People learn proper colloquial grammar in early childhood – nobody, for example, says “Me want to get laid” except as a humorous usage – but need to learn the slightly different grammar that is standard in formal English. This has resulted in the prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar debates, which I consider a crock – all valid grammar is descriptive, but it may be describing the subset of English called “formal English” and hence be seen as prescriptive "rules for proper English. It’s not; it’s merely the description of what is standard usage when. “Kindly escort the umpire from the playing field” is as out of place at a baseball game as “You gotta make sure the damn machine is plugged in” would be in a technical manual.
Oh I agree that “there’s” was wrong; I was just making an aside comment… the word struck me as odd and on consideration I didn’t think I’d actually seen it before.
lol…
sorry, I should have made it more clear I was being a wiseacre.
I do see your logic here…about the cluelessness.
But, this isn’t my case. Sure, it’s a clue that tells you…“dumbass use another name”. But, I didn’t care. I wanted Themis…so I snagged it…you know kind of like naming your son John, knowing that there are probably millions of Johns out there. Whenever there’s two or more Johns in the same class, workplace, team, etc. people usually tag the last initial at the end of it, like John T and John F. There was a Themis, well… now we have a Themis00. 
and thusly the whole bbq pit thread makes sense.
worreet maing, waffle sork blenoigfmaln
lapseen
quokmerool
[quote]
wiseacre[/quite]
shot!
I have seen that word many times and only just realized that it was a slight mispelling of wisearse.
(or is it?)
Wy du u allways giv ppl siht bcuz ov speling??? i gess your jst AYNUL u thnik ur beter then ppl hoo cant spel gude!
Wut DIFRENCE duz it maik hou i spel sins u kan neway tel whut i meen. ur jst stuk up bcuz u where taut 2b aynal abowt you’re speling. but u no whut, your jst the reel LOOSERS bcuz u loose mi rispect. U no whut, i hav KNOW consern 4 whut u tihnk. i kan spel neway i wunt two!!! Its nun ov your fukcing biznes bcuz mi riting speeks 4 IT’S SELF!!! Wen u korect my speling u dont caer abowt it’s MEENING u jst wunt ppl too thikn your to smrat 4 ur briches!!! Butt u r NOTSEES bcuz u kan NOT SEE whut im saing. Sew FUKC OF!!!
Wrong.
We KNOW we are better than people who can’t spell. (except for dyslexic people who often turn out to be better than us)
Now to be a bit more serious.
While it is true that the important message is in the meaning and not the spelling. It is also true in most cases that the [consistently] bad speller is a careless and/or unintelligent person. If he/she/they didn’t pay attention to learning to spell at school/home then we have consider that they might not have paid attention to other subjects of learning, and so might be a little stupider than average.
And if the bad speller might be stupid, so the ‘Important message’ might be stupid.
So any important message is backed up by good spelling.