Do you think internet slang is acceptable at Survey Central?

It is wrong - plain and simple. We have symbols like this people can use.

I think it's fine, although some of it certainly irritates me. People should be allowed to do what they want here.

Why wouldn't it be? This should be in the forum or something.

I accept internet slang as a way of communicating on the internet. As SC is on the internet, I accept it here. I am not a seasoned chat room visitor (I don't think I've ever been to one) so the slang can be confusing sometimes...but funny enough, I've figured a lot of it out (like LOL, for example) from hearing people use it verbally.

It doesn't bother me.

Accepted, but not appreciated.
I don't really enjoy it, and I'd prefer if it wasn't there. But it's called freedom of speech, so I just deal with it.l

I'm saying yes, for the simple fact that I view SC as a communal site, a gathering of various people. Ultimately, I suppose that if bill said *no slang!* then no slang, but everyone is different, and we ought to embrace those differences. If SC was a corporate forum, then absolutely not, but it's not, it's up to the individual user. Besides, if we can use smileys without feeling guilty, then why not be able to ROFLMAO? are they both not expressions?

Personally I don't use many of them in SC (I don't think) though I *do* have the habit of using b/c and w/ & w/o but I use those shorthands while writing.

I don't have a problem with it. People using it may be communicating more about themselves than they think, though.

WGAFF??

Depends on it. As long as it's stuff such as LOL and nothing bigger; however, SC users should take care to make sure that their grammar is proper.

um yeah, why not...lol

It depends on the slang. The ones you mention are okay, although I've never heard of ROFLASTC, so if you hadn't said what it meant I'd be lost of that one. Simple ones like LOL and OMG are generally used and most often accepted. I think it's when people start to use "u", "r", and things like that that it gets out of hand. To me, that's just laziness. It's only a few more keys to type and it looks better when words are spelled out.

lmao........yeah no crap julie

That isn't "slang", that is an example of an acronym.

Yes, bill expects this of us.

It depends on the slang. I'm not fond of kewl speech myself, but that's just me.

I'm not sure - I personally TRY not to, but I think that's more from observing a percieved propriety than anything else.

But is that not what makes up the majority of online slang? Lol is lots of laughs. OMG is oh my gosh - surely some random person woke up one day and decided what they would be...

I hate internet slang. It's lazy and juvenile.

WTF, hell yes its ok. lol

JIMF

FUATHYRIO
Just kidding! I'll probably never really grow up.

Within reason.

Jewels is my friend?
jogging in my flip-flops?
jesters imagine many funnies?
jerry is missing a finger?
jesus is minutely furry?

ok...i give up...what is it???

First one was right, good read.lol

FUBAR

whew!!!

i was racking my brain so hard to figure this out, i guess i should always go with my gut!!

I really thought you'd get it right off, I wasn't testing you or anything.

I thought it was "laughing out loud".

i think im bout to say the hell with this site...no crap....

noooooooooo girl!!!
you CAN'T possibly go!! the world NEEDS more krazy klowns!!!!!!!!!! this site needs a krazy klowny dog....stay and play in our little 3 ring mess of a big top......
don't make me beg girl..... i'll have to round up my 'insane klown posse' an' haul 'em down to florida...they'll convince you sista!!

hahahaha........well in that kase i guess i can stay..tehehhe.......but i swear to God i hate the pandora dog.....gerrrrrrrrrrr.........lol........but i supose SC woulndt be the same with out kokoklown now would it, lmao..

well...glad to to have convinced you

Geeeez. There's a nice thing to see on a lovely Thursday afternoon.

i am waring u dog stay the fudge away! i hate you...........thanxs to u the one o truly loved, dont want me no more, its over and its all your dayem fault....>

Errr, okay. Please feel free to use your filter feature if you don't care to see my posts.

SAY HUH???????

On the "customize" tab, you can type in the names of members who you do not wish to see the comments of. In essense, they just "disappear" as far as you are concerned.

Good idea!

o i c well i dont partivualry wont to make anyone "disapear" i like watching what people have to say. just bc i dont like someone dont meen i dont want to hear their opinions.....lol...wicked klowns never die!

ok well - internet slang may be a little bit different, but I have noticed a few expressions on SC that I don't understand. (SC has developed some slang of its own, I believe)....maybe here is an appropriate place to ask. In an Unqualified survey, many times I will see someone put "wees" in the comment section. What does this mean?

I think "lol" is okay but when you start seeing "u r funny" and "o i c" it gets annoying.

Yes, as long as users understand all the abbreviations and acronyms.

I hate internet slang. It's lazy and juvenile.

Tell me, is it as juvenile as your way of discussing things here?

Oh I thought you didn't like talking to me. No, it's juvenile. My discussions have to deteriorate because of people like you who say one thing but don't seem to live how you talk. I also get frustrated when talking to people like Brian who seem to hate everything the US is about while enjoying living in the same country. It's illogical and hypocritical and I get frustrated when people like he and you refuse to see that. You're pretty juvenile yourself.

I think we're both (and BrianW as well) so convinced about our own believes that it's hard to imagine what the other one is thinking. We are at the both ends of the spectrum. That will never change I'm afraid. Let's just stop arguing because it's getting us nowhere.

The problem with Brian is that he demands I provide proof, then when I do he calls me AND the scientists liars! How can you possibly avoid descending into personal attacks when a person acts like you are attacking his religion when you present facts?

You can proof whatever you want. There are also scientists who have proven (and who I believe) there actually is such a thing as global warming.

There has been a scientist who has ' proven' the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz were a lie. See what I mean?

Of course there is global warming. If there wasn't the planet would freeze every sunset. My whole point (missed on Brian) is that it is impossible to determine whether humans are doing anything to contribute to global warming. The whole reason green groups ignore all the natural cycles that have always influenced global temperatures for millions of years before we came along is that they know their anti-fossil fuels use agenda is meaningless unless they blame any and all global change on humans. All i want is for him to acknowledge that it is possible that any changes are entirely natural. He and other greenies don't seem to talk any of that into consideration. Believers also ignore the fact that even if the planet is warming, it will not result in bad effects absolutely everywhere. Dry areas may get wetter. Freezing areas may open up to plants and animals for new habitat. Incredibly Brian thought scientists who proved that plants grow better with less water under higher levels of CO2 were lying! Even without such proof it's basic botany most people learn in high school.

I heard on the radio yesterday in fact that the 3 mathematicians who came up with the projections that green groups jumped on as proof of global warming missed several important variables. One of the most important was the fact that several hundred years ago we had a cool period known as the 'little ice age' in which the Thames River in London froze allowing people to walk over it for several years. Since then the global temperatures have slowly risen naturally, a process that started well before the industrial revolution, until today where it is estimated we are almost at the same pre-little ice age temperatures. In other words, this is just part of a natural cycle and we are moving back to normal temperatures that were on Earth before the 'little ice age'. Humans really have little to do with any of it. It's like a person starting to take measurements at midnight and as the day warms up saying that is evidence that humans are warming up the day. It's ludicrous.

From www.epa.gov

Like many fields of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of global warming. This does not imply that all things are equally uncertain. Some aspects of the science are based on well-known physical laws and documented trends, while other aspects range from 'near certainty' to 'big unknowns.'

What's Known for Certain?
Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.

It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.

A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.

What's Likely but not Certain?
Figuring out to what extent the human-induced accumulation of greenhouse gases since pre-industrial times is responsible for the global warming trend is not easy. This is because other factors, both natural and human, affect our planet's temperature. Scientific understanding of these other factors – most notably natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, and the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols – remains incomplete.

Nevertheless, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated there was a "discernible" human influence on climate; and that the observed warming trend is "unlikely to be entirely natural in origin." In the most recent Third Assessment Report (2001), IPCC wrote "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

In short, scientists think rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming, as would be expected; but to what extent is difficult to determine at the present time.

As atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise, scientists estimate average global temperatures will continue to rise as a result. By how much and how fast remain uncertain. IPCC projects further global warming of 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) by the year 2100. This range results from uncertainties in greenhouse gas emissions, the possible cooling effects of atmospheric particles such as sulfates, and the climate's response to changes in the atmosphere.

The IPCC states that even the low end of this warming projection "would probably be greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years, but the actual annual to decadal changes would include considerable natural variability."

What are the Big Unknowns?
Scientists have identified that our health, agriculture, water resources, forests, wildlife and coastal areas are vulnerable to the changes that global warming may bring. But projecting what the exact impacts will be over the 21st century remains very difficult. This is especially true when one asks how a local region will be affected.

Scientists are more confident about their projections for large-scale areas (e.g., global temperature and precipitation change, average sea level rise) and less confident about the ones for small-scale areas (e.g., local temperature and precipitation changes, altered weather patterns, soil moisture changes). This is largely because the computer models used to forecast global climate change are still ill-equipped to simulate how things may change at smaller scales. [See the U.S. Climate section for more detail on climate models.]

Some of the largest uncertainties are associated with events that pose the greatest risk to human societies. IPCC cautions, "Complex systems, such as the climate system, can respond in non-linear ways and produce surprises." There is the possibility that a warmer world could lead to more frequent and intense storms, including hurricanes. Preliminary evidence suggests that, once hurricanes do form, they will be stronger if the oceans are warmer due to global warming. However, the jury is still out whether or not hurricanes and other storms will become more frequent.

More and more attention is being aimed at the possible link between El Niño events – the periodic warming of the equatorial Pacific Ocean – and global warming. Scientists are concerned that the accumulation of greenhouse gases could inject enough heat into Pacific waters such that El Niño events become more frequent and fierce. Here too, research has not advanced far enough to provide conclusive statements about how global warming will affect El Niño.

Living with Uncertainty
Like many pioneer fields of research, the current state of global warming science can't always provide definitive answers to our questions. There is certainty that human activities are rapidly adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and that these gases tend to warm our planet. This is the basis for concern about global warming.

The fundamental scientific uncertainties are these: How much more warming will occur? How fast will this warming occur? And what are the potential adverse and beneficial effects? These uncertainties will be with us for some time, perhaps decades.

Global warming poses real risks. The exact nature of these risks remains uncertain. Ultimately, this is why we have to use our best judgement – guided by the current state of science – to determine what the most appropriate response to global warming should be.

And this tells us what? As far as I can see it's all guess work. They admit they know very little. My point exactly. In addition;

1. They immediately ignore the contribution of volcanoes which is enormous, in fact so large that human contributions may not be the major factor in the rise in greenhouse gases.
2. Quoting "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." from the IPCC is meaningless without this "new and stronger evidence" being shown.
3. They ignore the fact that we are still coming out of an unusally cold episode so of course global temperatures will be rising.
4. They assume the pre-industrial global temperatures and levels of CO2 in the atmosphere was the "default" and any variation must automatically be bad.

I pretty much agree with most of this post because most of it is estimation, conjecture and guess work. Nothing is proven. They may as well have saved bandwidth and just written "we haven't got a clue".

The IPCC cannot be trusted. They omitted information and used misleading statistics to reinfoce their pro- greenhouse disaster religion (or more likely their own jobs)

If you are interested in IPCC deceptions see http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm