thank you porcupine to answer the op i dont use alot of netspeak, brb mostly i rarely use lol, to me it seems strange to write
‘OMG’ qualifies for the ‘annoying expressions’ thread
I tend to use them in chat rooms or IMs to save time or to express something in the heat of the moment. if you type out the full words then youiuiuhgiuguigiuguiig…
I only use Net abbreviations rarely…except in AIM Chats since I discovered that apparently Trillian has sounds coded for some of the more popular ones. “LOL” causes a freaky-sounding laugh, and two people regularly hook up to AIM via Trillian, so when we want to annoy them… 
As you know quite well, Dirty, I use a decent amount of net-speak. Mostly just “lol,” “brb,” and “bbl,” which are concepts that are otherwise hard to explain as concisely as needed. Most of the time, I’ll type it out, though occasionally a “omg!” or " wtf?" will slip out, especially if I’m distracted.
I just use LOL and BRB. I don’t use OMG because my 12-year-old sister uses it all the time and it sounds immature and stupid.
Don’t you mean “OMG, 3 MOBs inc!” 
I play a lot of online games, so I always use abbreviations when talking to my group. I don’t like “LOL” or “ROFL” really, so I usually just use “hehe” or “haha” or some variation. I don’t use net abbreviations very often in E-mail, and on boards usually stick to the more “formal” acronyms like IIRC, IMHO, and the like.
Don’t you get it, though? “LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL” means they are “laughing out loud out loud out loud out loud out loud out loud…”
-Dirty
LMAORITFOTDAITTPOAOB
Does anyone use that one?
Heres a good link for net speak.
I’ll admit to the occasional use of LOL in Everquest, but for the most part I don’t like abbreviations… some EQ abbreviations that cheese me off are:
plz - If I’m doing you a favor, you could at least use an extra 3 keystrokes and make me think you appreciate my time.
thx - see above
suxxor (or any modification of said word)
kk - A bastardization of “OK” especially hate this one!
pst “please send tell” - aww, I wanted to use a carrier pigeon…
Man, I hate “plz” and “thx” - a complete sentence can’t be too much to ask for if someone will be doing you a favor, but abbreviating a short word is even worse.
Well first of all, I’ll be the first to admit(symbolicly of course) that I use netspeak. As someone said earlier, it’s simply efficient. Although I must admit excessive usage(How r u tdy?) as well as that damn annoying HoW R u tDy style of typing is damn annoying.
But anyway, getting back to the initial post.
Why not? I understand that using these acronyms in papers and such sound EXTREMELY stupid. I understand that part of good writing is being able make your written words sound good. but so is efficiency, clearness. Sesquipedalic (I wonder how many people’ll have to look this up, I sure did) words aren’t always so.
besides language is ever evolving. Words/acronyms are made up all the time, why not add a few. In fact, I did a quick search at www.dictionary.com and put in LOL, BRB, IIRC, and TLA and got hits for them, granted however dictionary.com isn’t the oxford english dictionary.
I think you answered your own (rhetorical) question here. It’s extremely stupid. Extremely stupid things don’t belong in papers you’re submitting for a grade. Kind of a no-brainer, if you will.
It doesn’t mean that they’re “proper” or “formal” English though. I’m sure most dictionaries have racial slurs, examples of old and outdated slang, and so on. Just because “it’s in the dictionary!” doesn’t mean that class papers intended to show one’s mastery of modern English and paragraph composition should include them.
Most acronyms in writing are discouraged, barring special circumstances, like organizations that are known by the acronym - NATO, UNICEF - or words that are mostly only known as the acronym, like radar, scuba, and so on. Research papers can use acronyms for various scientific terms as long as the acronym was explained earlier in the report. A few abbreviations are allowed, but for the most part words are spelled out. It makes it easier for the reader, as that is the person whose convenience matters.
There’s also the reason for including an acronym or abbreviation to consider. Many of them, like LOL and emoticons, are designed to express emotion. The structure of papers allows one to have the room and the time to develop sentences that convey mood without the shortcuts of smileys. Smileys are “see, I’m happy/joking” flags, but in fiction you would instead write something to describe how the speaker looked when he said the comment in question, or how a listener reacted, and so forth. In something non-fiction, hopefully you would be able to use descriptive enough language to show that a joke is being made. E-mail, text messages, and the like are written hastily and usually are intentionally much shorter than the equivalent version written on paper.
Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal would not have been improved by the addition of a at the end, or a string of "LOL"s.
Well, I don’t know about that. I think it could use a few:
[quote]
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout. j/k
[quote]
[sub]The use of the quote tag in no way implies that Jonathan Swift actually used the netspeak indicated above. [/sub]
I use BRB all the time and have used “ROFLing” as a verb (well, gerund). And LOL, rarely. None of the other common ones though.
Sounding extremely stupid and being extremely stupid are two completely different things. I’ve used emoticons once or twice in order to illustrate a particularly sarcastic point(The net gods know how sarcasm can be lost in the written word…).
-denisev, I agree.
but…
I guess I could think of a few situations where using an emoticon would be for the convenience of the reader, but those are few are far between.
Might’ve helped those members of parliament(it was parliament right?) who didn’t get it =)
In a paper, it’s an extremely foolhardy thing to do. If I were a teacher or professor reading a paper with Net acronyms in it, that paper will receive a low grade. It’s very unscholarly and shows a lack of respect for the subject - unless the subject is Net acronyms, of course.
Simply on the merit of it containing net acronyms?
I don’t see how it shows lack of respect for a subject, nor is it unscholarly in my opinion. In my opinion, should a net acronym, emoticon, or other form of emphasization such as capitolizing or italicizing was used in a clear and concise manner without sounding too ungodly stupid, I wouldn’t mark down. Things are always unconventional before they become common.
Still I agree, in most cases, it’s just plain stupid to turn in a paper containing net acronyms. I wouldn’t bet my grade on creative flair.
On that note, does anyone else thing grades mean absolutely nothing? My friend tells me about a college on the east coast that has no grading system whatsoever. Graduation is based on being able to complete a final project.
I’m sorry you feel that way, but that’s how actual scholars feel about it. An acronym that a) has nothing to do with the subject material and b) has only been around less than a decade has no place in a scholarly paper. No place at all.
If I handed in a paper with LOL in it, you bet your ass I’d have received an F for the paper. Might even have flunked out for the year.
Good Lord, these aren’t supposed to be casual papers. You need to make a claim and back it up. Why would you use in a research paper the kind of acronym you’d use in casual speak on the Internet?
Obviously, content and form are both gradable aspects of a paper. But if you make some great points in a paper and then sprinkle in net acronyms, you’re only asking for trouble - in essence, you’re destroying your own credibility.