Please, please, please, don't tell us how to think or speak. It's perfectly
fair
to prefer to read spelled-out names, but if a poster wants to abbreviate
names,
then that is his or her prerogative. If the reader has a hard time
understanding the
message, then the poster has lost some of his audience at his own peril.
But it's
the poster's message, not the reader's, and the latter is always free to
ignore it.
I sympathize with expression of preference, but I was taken aback by the
suggestion
that it be made a *rule* not to use four-letter abbreviations on Tweeters.

The practical issues stated in other posts may not be compelling arguments
for
abbreviation, but that doesn't make them any less real. If people are in a
hurry, then
they have every right to abbreviate, whether or not you like the pace of
contemporary
society or the way they manage their time.

If the issue is really clarity in posting, then perhaps we should censor
those who use
bad grammar, misspell words, or type poorly. We could ban incorrect usage
and
awkward syntax as well. But then, of course, we'd have far fewer posts.

Several readers have made clear their distaste for abbreviations. That's
all that needs
to be said. Let's not have a police state, please.

JMc

P.s. -- I got my life MGWA on the walk to work yesterday morning, sans
binoculars.
It was up close, so I could easily see the hood and bright yellow breast,
and I could even
make out the incompleteness of the eye ring. (I threw in the ID details as
context for
those who were having trouble with the abbreviation.)

P.p.s. -- Are the use of my initials, "P.s.", "P.p.s.", and "ID" acceptable?


Jim McCoy
jfmccoy at earthlink.net
Redmond, WA