My point stands that these innovations are largely orthographic, and thus mind-bogglingly insignificant as far as language change goes. For example, using “c” instead of “see” to represent the verb denoting vision is irrelevant in oral communication. Though I don’t understand all these excerpts, I can almost guarantee that I would understand these people perfectly in an oral conversation. Nobody says “vert” instead of “very”. That’s called a typo.
Returning to the geographic confusions I mentioned earlier, how about translating, in isolation, “Boy?” or “Ha’way”?
However, you assume that oral communication is the only relevant measure or method. This is blatantly false. I know I spend more time communicating over the Internet than I do in real life, and with more people. Such a pattern may make me a nerd, but it also makes me depressingly normal as netgoers go. If the trend of degeneration continues among young net-users, it may become impossible to communicate with them at all outside of a face-to-face setting. Which kind of invalidates the whole existence of the Internet.
Let me shorten the list for you.
“ok
but to too”
“right she”
Now, I was actually in the conversation, and I have no idea what either of these statements meant. They were, to me, context-free and entirely incomprehensible. So much so that I entertained the thought that I was speaking with a badly programmed AI. The first occurred at the tail end of
I presume that you know what these both mean, and that they are established word-entities with a given usable context. Not so with the above. I’ll give you the context: with “ok but to too”, I had just told the person “if you want to talk to her, do”. With “right she”, the acquaintance had just said that I probably “look way better” than a mutual acquaintance, to which I replied “probably”. After “right she” the conversation ended. Was it a goodbye? An agreement? The beginning part of a decapitated sentence?
OK, now you want to talk about them in context. If so, it’s impossible to do so in a transcription such as this. Given the social context, and the tone of voice and body language and everything else, I’m sure I’d have worked it out. What’s the big deal?
All you seem to be saying is “they’re not talking properly”. We want to know, what is proper English?
There is no body language or tone of voice. There never was. I’m sure these people are more or less normal when speaking vocally.
Proper English is self-defining. When a conversation occurs in which both participants communicate the ideas they wish to communicate without either one being aggravated by the other’s speech mannerisms or misunderstanding the other’s point, they are both speaking proper English (or proper whatever-language-they-actually-speak). In any other situation, proper english depends on who can shout the loudest.
Good, because you’re not doing a very good job of it. 
You seem to be saying that there are lots of groups that can converse among themselves just fine. Some have problems communicating with other groups. And your group (by definition) speaks Proper English. Anyone who can’t commmunicate easily with you isn’t speaking Proper English.
If it turns out that your group is a small minority of those people who claim to be speaking English will you change your group labels?
Why are you filtering my words?
And the prize for hijacking someone’s thread goes to. . .
“More or less normal” according to whom?
You are missing the point by a thousand miles. You have to define ‘normal’ and ‘standard’ before you can use such terms.
All right. Define “define” and “thousand” for me, and I will.
Does no one in this thread remember how to gather meaning from context? In this case I was using the word “normal” as a method by which to contrast their known writing style, of which I give examples, with their probable speaking style, of which I have no knowledge. If you really want a definition of standard English, try looking through the Scott Plaid thread for the link someone gave him on how to coherently write. That’ll give you a place to start.
Really, trying to define standard English misses the point. If the standard is working, no-one will need to define it. If it isn’t, defining it is useless. And if you actually require a definition, there is no point in continuing discussion.