Numbers never lie. The people who wield them, however, often do.

This is the most intense game of manipulation ever played by humanity and one that will continue until humans are extinct. We love numbers. We covet their honesty and hold them in higher esteem than their shady counterparts, words. While words inherently have the ability to be deceitful, numbers, we often think, ride on high moral horses. They can't lie to us because they're mathematical progeny; results born from formulas and algorithms that work. How could someone possibly twist an honest integer into an interpretation? How could they use an individual of such strong character for their evil ends?

We've seen it before. In video games and movies, comics, novels, and generally any form of artistic expression. People bend numbers to do their bidding with trickery, not with corruption. Like the epic White Knight, numbers are incorruptable, but, they are not the brightest of the bunch either.

Dropping the metaphor for a moment, numbers have no intelligence. They are tools to be used, not individuals who provide services. The intelligence in numbers comes from the human source. The one doing the manipulating.

And back on the metaphorical track, let's explore how the White Knight (numbers) can get totally pwnd by an evil witch named Israndi (say, Pollsters and Retail Stores). The White Knight is, as usual, on a quest for his love who happens to be, as usual, trapped in a castle. Along the roadside he spots an old woman and asks her, because he's lacking in the mental department, where the next castle is. The old woman, seeing potential in this 'hero', tells him the castle where a princess is held is straight up the road, atop a high cliff. She tells him he must not tarry in slaying every individual in the castle, because at nightfall they will all turn into hungery beasts and tear him limb from limb. He must get them while they are vulnerable.

And so off the knight goes, racing the sunset. He pulls up to the castle in his white ride and dismounts. Casually, he asks for entrance into the castle. The guards, suspecting he is of the highest moral standing (he is the White Knight) bow graciously and unlock the door.

At which point, the White Knight, driven by the old woman, stabs them in their necks.

And so he enters and a vicious killiing spree ensues until there is but one individual left in the castle, the King. The Knight approaches the King and asks where his princess is being held. The king, clearly perturbed by all the violence, says that there is no princess there. That his only daughter, a hideous maiden, was stolen from him by an old witch only days prior. He informs the White Knight of the search party that went out and found only the remains of his beloved (and hideous) daughter. They found an old woman, and after questioning her, realized that she was the witch. Not wanting to give away their knowledge, they sought to leave and return with more men. The witch, however, had other plans, and killed all but one of them, who was quite the runner.

And so the Knight learns of his misdeeds. His high moral walls were breached by the witch's trickery. She prodded in all the right places to make him do evil when he thought he was doing good.

This is the way it is with numbers. Pollsters know that if you ask the right questions, you'll get the "right" answers. That's why they're paid to craft surveys in such a way as to give the result a biased outcome.

But Pollsters aren't all evil. And they aren't the only ones who do it.

Numbers are used for determining value. Prices, therefore, tend to be a good indicator of the quality of a good or service. The price of a good or service will generally determine its value to the consumer. However, prices can be misleading.

Jack up the prices on a nice-looking but terrible tasting beverage, and you may find that demand for the product actually goes up. Why? Because when something is pricey, people have a hard time psychologically sorting the actual good from the chunk of change they used to purchase it.

In other words, does that sandwich taste better because it is of superior quality? Or does it taste better because it cost you 35$?

Keep your eyes open for what people try to do with numbers. And remember, numbers don't lie.

People do.

You know.

You know that I know as well.

Why? Because we're gamers.

We know that in any given videogame situation, especially these shiny new MMORPG's, there's going to be a party structure. This is not the kind of Keg-Stand party structure you use to partake in in college, either. This is a party united by a common goal aching to get some phat loots.

The 5-Man party system is the go-to for efficiency in gaming. It has a Tank, a Healer, and 3 people who are bent on causing damage.

Is this the brilliant invention of one of the first game developers? Or is it, simply, a reflection of real life situations, augmented by absurd levels of power?

Refer back to the thought of a college keg party.

Generally, when you go to a party, you go with a group of friends. The size of your friend group may differ on any night, but, on average, there will be 4 to 5 people in it (I make this assumption for ease of argument).

In this example, I will use Steve, Seth, Gideon, Jacob, and Ashley as our theoretical 5-Man team.

The epic and phat loots you are after on this night of debauchery are:

Fun

Phone Numbers

Social Interaction

Your group of 5(ish) merry travelers was formed to retrieve fun, some socializing, and, if it happens to drop, a phone number from a certain 'boss' type.

Now, it is also the case that some members of your group don't need some of the drops from this event. Seth, for example, cares not for phone numbers, as he already has an epic-quality girlfriend. Jacob already has a girlfriend, but is looking for an upgrade. He may pass on phone numbers, but only if someone needs it more. Provided a new phone number drops tonight, Jacob will be forced to pawn off his 'vendor-trash' girlfriend in order to make room for the new-comer. Ashley has all the phone numbers she could ever want, and as such is only grouping with her friends for the fun and social aspect.

One friend, Bill, was unable to join tonight because he was busy farming materials for a Corvette (so he could get more phone numbers).

And so our group enters the party scene. This particular party is rather difficult to infiltrate, as the members of the group know little about the people that reside there. After making their way to the center of the living room, they break off into their distinct specialties.

Ashley, the tank, gets the attention of all the men in the room by doing some wicked dance moves. After building up enough aggro, she kites the men around, confusing them and causing them to bump into one another in search of a conversation with her.

While the men are confused and otherwise occupied, Steve, Gideon, and Jacob are free to test their abilities on the ladies in the room. Gideon, the highest DPS (delight per second) individual in the group, begins charming a young lady who was moments ago standing idly in the corner. After dropping a few one liners, and even using his signature dance move (which can't be used more than once every 3 minutes), Gideon finds his DPS is plateauing, and then falling. This woman has used her best defense, the Cold Shoulder, to stop Gideon in his tracks. His advances do nothing but reflect back to him how useless they are. Gideon retreats, emotionally hurting.

Seth comes to Gideon's aid.

"Gideon, cheer up man, it's just one girl!"

"Yeah, but, man, it's like I wasn't even there. God, my DPS is so low tonight. Must just be an off-night or something."

"Man, you never have an off night. Look at it like this; that was the warm-up round. We don't know what these people are like since Ashley is the one who got us an extended invite. They're all new! Just give it some time until you figure it out."

"Alright. I'll give it another go."

Seth is, of course, acting as the healer. His words brought Gideon back to life after a crushing defeat. More than that, Seth has given him a buff by inflating his ego.

Steve, the member of the group with the lowest Delight Per Second, has actually been doing well this evening. His unique Keg Stand Jig has given him the most attention and, consequently, the best chance for getting a phone number to drop.

It has also caused him to grab threat off of Ashley. One of the largest males in the room approaches Steve, a confrontational tone in his voice.

"What are you DOING?" groans the man.

"Uh, I was just, uh, I, uh..." Steve is noticably shaken by the threat he has produced. His jarred state doesn't allow him to use his Buddy Maker threat reducer. Ashley, finally noticing the trouble, makes her way through the crowd in hopes of getting the man's attention back on her.

"Hey, man, we don't want any trouble." says Seth, diffusing the situation.

"WELL, YOU GOT YOURSELF SOME." says the large man.

"Wait, you should know, Steve is a black belt in Jujitsu," says Seth.

This, a gamble and a half, is Seth's attempt at healing the situation. It has a 50% chance to repair everything and, sadly, a 50% chance to end in Steve's death.

"Hey! Want to dance?" asks Ashley, clammoring for aggro.

"I...uh, yeah. Just don't kick the ceiling again, okay?" says the giant man.

Crisis averted. The team successfully used its specialties to diffuse a dangerous situation and, most importantly, get what they came for.

At the end of the night, Steve leaves with a handful of phone numbers and no broken bones. Ashley had a lot of fun and saved her friends, while Seth enjoyed himself and pumping up his buddies. Gideon and Jacob remain slightly bitter because of their failures (Gideon was lowest on the DPS meter, and Jacob not much higher). However, when they look back, they all remember a fun night full of shenanigans and awesome.

And so it goes, translated into the videogame world.

This, my final bit on internet language, is the actual research paper I did after my rant and observational stage. The goal is to use a scientific source of some sort, and apply the knowledge to your existing paper and then, with rude enthusiasm, to rewrite your paper.

Dealing with internet language, I needed a source on linguistics, and, I hoped, language's effects on culture. I lay it all out with metaphors and what not so it should be easily readable and HEY! You might even learn something.

So, here it is.

Language Shock, written by Michael Agar in the early nineties, presents an anthropologist's approach to decoding the bond between culture and language. Though the book was written at the beginning of the technological boom of the internet, the theories presented in it have a bearing on the evolution of language that has been catalyzed by such changes in communication. Culture and language are so intertwined that Agar proposes the creation of a new word, languaculture, to more accurately describe their relationship; "The langua in languaculture is about discourse, not just about words and sentences... the culture in languaculture is about meanings that include, but go well beyond, what the dictionary and grammar offer" (p.96). Agar's discoveries, often presented in anecdotal evidence, lend significant scholarly weight to the notion that the language we see on the internet today reflects a deeper aspect of our changing society. As technology has advanced over the past few decades, our society has witnessed an increase in demand for instant gratification. According to Agar's argument, the ties between language and culture are so strong that we should also see a change in response to this new cultural emphasis within our language. This change has been realized through the advent of internet language. Internet language is full of abbreviations, acronyms, and truncation which, I will argue, is due to the bond between language and culture that Agar highlights in his book.

Language and culture exist as two separate, though highly interdependent, entities. Language can be seen as a lens through which we form our vision of the world, and the shape and contours of this lens are the "distortions" determined by culture. With this metaphor as our basis for understanding languaculture, the ramifications for a change in either entity become clear. Changes in either result in a change of the vision of the world. To emphasize this, Agar uses the language of the Hopi tribe in comparison with modern English. The Hopi language has no tenses. Time exists as an entirely separate element of the world and tenses are reflected through the way an event was observed – i.e. eye witness, second hand account, etc. English, as we all know, is very concerned with time, down to its smallest measurable quantities. The question then becomes, with the language constructs being so different and thus the lenses being so incomparable, "are the two ways of seeing the world that go with the language the same at all" (65). Such drastic differences in the way thoughts are organized must make an impact on how individuals within the languaculture are able to construct their reality.

Though the reality constructs are widely separated in the case of Hopi language versus English, the concepts can be applied to the recent "lens distortions" of internet language. Whereas in the previous case we were analyzing two distinct lenses, this time we are analyzing the same lens with different distortions.

As our technology has advanced over the past few decades, we've been hearing lamentations from older generations about the new "instant gratification" generation that has slowly been coming to power. In reality, this focus on "instant gratification" represents not impatience within the new generation, but a different set of values in relation to how people communicate. This value shift does not represent a downgrade or regression of any sorts within the new generation, but rather an entirely different approach to the way people share information. In past written language, a person often showed their wanting to communicate and their level of involvement with someone by taking the time to write a long, hand written letter. This mail would take days to reach its recipient. Nowadays, with our technology speeding up the process, the best way to show someone you care about what they are saying is by responding as quickly as possible. The length or content of the response does not matter as much as its timing. It may still be nice to receive a handwritten letter in the mail, but this represents, to the newer generation, a step above and beyond what it takes to effectively communicate. We've moved from an era where responses were indicative of personal investment to one where response time has become the main indicator.

We live in a world where time is a highly valuable commodity. Our technology not only reinforces this idea, but allows us to become more efficient and thus get more out of one hour than in years prior. However, with so much to be done in every single hour of the day, we've had to speed up our lives, and our language, too. Internet language represents a transformation from a world where standard English was more than enough to get the job done, to one where a shortened, much faster version of the language is an absolute necessity. As I addressed in my rhetorical analysis, usage of words like lol, rofl, lmao, hai, bai, and pwn has become prevalent in society today. There also exists dozens, if not potentially hundreds of others, which allow more to be said in less space – brb, ttyl, gtg, 2, 4, l8r, l33t, to name a few. This increase in acronymization and truncation of existing words and phrases rises out of the need for efficiency in internet language which has been brought on by our culture's continuing focus on the value of response time.

The switch from standard English to a widely truncated and seemingly foreign version of internet language may seem to be a difficult affair, considering it implies a shift in our notion of what reality is. However, Agar notes within Language Shock that there exist two theories for the general understanding of language and the ability to switch between languages. The first, rather unpopular, belief is linguistic determinism. Linguistic determinism states that the language one speaks in is like the construction of a room around oneself, from which the world can be viewed and explored. However, this room also acts as a prison, and becoming languaculturally bilingual is an impossibility. The second, language relativism, stresses that although language is the room in which one explores the world, it is simply a comfortable place for doing so and that learning a new language essentially allows for movement from one room to another, seeing the world in a different way with every transition (p.68). As we discuss internet language, it is essential to note that we are dealing not with an entirely new language, per say, but a new dialect of an old language. The jump from "room to room," per Agar's example, is not nearly as difficult as jumping to a fully foreign language. The rooms have the same layout and construction, but are filled with different amenities and perhaps differently sized windows. The switch is therefore not a drastic one, but does allow for a different view of the world. As Agar remarks, "Language carries with it patterns of seeing, knowing, talking, and acting. Not patterns that imprison you, but patterns that mark the easier trails for thought and perception and action" (p.71). Arguably, a world viewed from a hardcore internet language speaker's room is one in which a larger portion of reality is able to be made more efficient, or otherwise truncated. When one speaks, or writes, in acronyms which contain three to five letters but project an idea based on three to five words, it can be assumed that one's thought processes partially revolve around making other, non-language based things in the world more efficient, shorter, or easier.

This presents us with a linguistic challenge. When the constructs of one's reality are based on both culture and language, and the culture and language continue to stress the importance of speed and efficiency, it would appear that we have entered into a positive feedback mechanism for continued acceleration of communication. That is, because the culture demands more speed, the language adjusts to be more expedient, allowing the culture to stress speed even more, and therefore continuing to force language, and our view of reality, to become more efficient. Despite Agar's emphasis on language as the lens with which we view our world, his response to these kind of positive feedback, or vicious cycle, mechanisms is nonexistent. Whether or not the "lens" of language eventually focuses reality into a single, burning beam remains unaddressed. Though not covered by the text, it seems less possible for a language to change its course after cultural momentum carries it in one direction, and I have a sneaking suspicion that the further a language goes stressing one attribute over another, the more apparent and irreversible its effects on the culture that employs it becomes.

In the case of internet language, this acceleration has become more and more apparent in direct relation to the prevalence of internet usage. It is no logical feat, then, to conclude that an increase in internet usage on a massive scale can lead to a change in language which we have seen thus far. From ORLY and YARLY to OMGHAIWTFZORZ, we are witnessing an unstructured and free evolution of language on a scale which, to my historical knowledge, is largely unprecedented. This is not a situation where certain individuals are changing a language in an effort to simplify it – as in China – and forcing their language constructs onto the rest of the populace. This is the epitome of a change from the bottom up. Large numbers of interactions online have spurred the general occurrence of truncation and acronymization which is so characteristic of internet language. We are therefore witnessing a rebuilding of language done quicker than ever before and involving the minds of the masses like never before.

To say that this change is not occurring, or to challenge it as a corruption of our language and a degradation of our society, is to be ignorant as to the nature of the beast we are dealing with. As discussed before with the lamentations of the old, this change represents not a shift in morals or quality communication, but a shift in values. What is important now, in an age where we are, as a species, largely connected, must be drastically different from what we use to deem salient. Responsiveness is now the value of the day. Though a languaculture which values response time above all else may seem insincere, the reasons for fast responses and, on a micro level, the words themselves still reflect people reaching out to interact personally with others whom they care for. The word LOL for instance, comes in various degrees and is used with varying frequencies to show genuine delight, and yet it is also a staple of the internet language, functioning as a full replacement for real-life laughter. Extensions of simple words like "hi" and "bye" to "hai" and "bai" represent a quick way to respond while simultaneously boosting sincerity. This all simply goes to show that while internet language may seem blunt and overly reduced, it is actually a form of language that has evolved because of our culture and the pressures placed on individuals in an internet setting.

Michael Agar's book Language Shock provides solid theoretical ground for leaping into the newly created world of internet language. His anthropological and linguistic knowledge provides a secure basis for the premise that our language, our culture, and our reality are all largely intertwined, and that our resulting perspective can be traced by delving deeper into our languaculture. With specific regards to internet language, however, Agar's theories acquire some slippage in the sense that they do not cover our culture's recent foray into digital space. Application of his theoretical science may therefore not be entirely suitable for internet language at the micro level, but is great for drawing inferences from internet language at large. By taking his theories and applying them to the general circumstances accompanying internet language, I have used his arguments as suitable framework for outlining the seemingly inevitable acceleration of our language and our culture. The phenomenon of internet language can be described in part by the work of past linguistic and anthropological theorists, like Agar, though a synthesis of these old theories with a new understanding of the pressures of technology and modern culture is needed to grasp the extent of the changes that are taking place in this digital world.

Work Cited

Agar, Michael. Language Shock: Understanding the Culture of Conversation. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 1994.

As always, here is my meta-commentary. Read for your own enjoyment at my mind's ability to fight with itself.

METACOMMENTARY (of death)Michael Agar standing on the rain-slick precipice of rage

Michael Agar (slightly enraged):

ORLY? SAM? My work is so dauntingly incomplete to you that you have to declare "slippage" of my theories between technological advances in the last decade and a half? LINGUISTIC THEORIES STAND THE TEST OF TIME, you sad sack of undergraduate potatoes. And I apologize, oh, wait, sorry, I DEEPLY apologize for filling that voluminous book that I wrote with anecdotes. I didn't realize you'd be summarizing 200 pages of brilliance down to three quotes in a five-page paper you wrote in two weeks. NEXT TIME I'LL BE MORE CONCISE. I would also like to state my sincerest of apologies for attempting to attract the attention of an ever more ADHD afflicted American audience with exciting stories of anthropology on the road. I swear to GOD you crazies have grown so attached to your machines that they're more of an extension of yourselves than tools for multi-tasking. PAY ATTENTION TO ME. ON THAT NOTE.

However. I suppose I should commend you for your clarification on what has happened to our culture these last two decades or so. We "old" folks may indeed be so entrenched in our positions that we don't realize there is a new way of thinking to be had these days. As much as you youngsters disrespect me with the constant *click-ing of your cell phone key pads, I must say that there are some spectacular feats of organization and time wasting being accomplished by your devices.

Wait. What am I saying!?

SAM. I WASN'T AROUND FOR WHEN THE INTERNET WAS WIDESPREAD IN ITS USE AND ADDICTION. HOW DARE YOU DECLARE MY PIECE INCOMPLETE WHEN I WAS COGNITIVELY UNABLE TO APPROACH THE MATERIAL FROM SUCH AN ANGLE. This is like telling Mozart he failed because his musical theories didn't take techno music into account! TAKE YOUR PAPER AND BURN THE DAMNED THING FOR ALL I CARE! (utters a primal roar, lightning strikes a tree in the background)

Me:

….... (disoriented by Michael Agar's apparent command of the elements)

Michael Agar:

But I digress (tree in the background sinks into the earth). You may have throughly misconstrued my cognitive abilities by using an anachronistic argument to label me as ignorant...but (tree is replaced by a statue of all twenty-six letters of the alphabet), you did apply my theories of linguistic determinism and relativism correctly, and your metaphor for languaculture as a lens is actually rather spot on. However, your paper avoided my entire section on speech acts in the book, one which I would find rather applicable though probably difficult to weave into your findings. That actually reminds me of this one time when I was in Greece studying a...

Me:

(coughing) AAHHHHHHNECDOTE

Michael Agar:

OH COME OFF IT ALREADY!(Michael Agar then disappears in a flash of light, and several trees in the background ignite simultaneously.)

Yes, I did turn this in to my professor.

This is my paper from a research course I took in college last year. I decided to study language use and transformation on the internet, and here is the paper I wrote prior to diving into linguistic implications.

Internet Lingo

The advent of the internet has revolutionized the way people communicate. The amount of information available to those connected to the web, and the speed with which they can retrieve it, has allowed for a greater exchange of ideas through a larger swathe of the world population. This atmosphere of high speed interaction and availability has led to a remarkable change in the way people communicate. A far cry from written and spoken styles of years gone by, this newly "evolved" form of language is based in the shortest prose available with an automatic assumption, from the writer to the reader, of mutual understanding. Everything from the relative distance of keys on the keyboard to a typist's own inability to type has caused a mutation away from conventional written language. Definitions of words are maintained to a high degree, despite the constant compacting of their individual letters. Interestingly, these new words often contain idiosyncrasies of symmetry, amplitude, and repetition which their forebears did not possess. This is a world of language where typos quickly become acceptable stand-ins for their counterparts and acronyms run amuck, multiplying like a benevolent but obtrusive virus. Though such language can be viewed as highly destructive to conventional grammar and spelling restrictions, it arises out of the complexity of "TEH INTERWEBS" to fill the language-culture vacuum created by this rapid dissemination of information.

The acronym "LOL" is now a common place term, thanks to users of internet messaging services, typed to express one's delight and/or amusement. Lol, as many of us internet users know, stands for "Laughing Out Loud." Lols exist in two variations which denote different reactions to what is being read. When presented in lower case, lol is often used as a replacement for a half-hearted real-life laugh, as when someone makes a joke that is not that funny but is still deserving of recognition. However, one can be sure that when a lol is presented in pure capitals (LOL), the reader is actually laughing in the real world. Caps lock, normally referred to as Caps, is always used to express extra enthusiasm with any of the abbreviations or terms in internet-speak. It is for this reason that there lies a wide distinction between a simple lol, and a more extravagant and deeply felt LOL.

Upon closer examination of the reactions of internet-speakers to hilarity, a hierarchy begins to emerge. This hierarchy can be used to detect the level of hilarity of a joke relative to the aforementioned terms plus two others: rofl and lmao. Lol is incredibly easy to type. Its combination of l and o, which are situated next to one another on a keyboard, makes it the quickest and possibly most generic response to any joke. A lower-case lol is therefore located at the bottom of this hilarity-hierarchy, being the easiest and fastest way to respond to any encounter containing wit and/or sarcasm. Kik, a typo for lol, also occupies this rung, though with much less frequency. "Haha" exists on the next rung of this hierarchy. Due to the letter combination, the keys' distance on the keyboard, and the frequency with which haha is used versus lol (that is, less), haha can be viewed as a middle of the road response to hilarity. Lol, being composed of three letters and also beautifully symmetrical, is the default response to humor shared via the internet.

At this point, the introduction of two additional terms becomes essential in understanding the hilarity hierarchy of internet-speak. ROFL, or "Rolling On the Floor Laughing", and LMAO, or "Laughing My Ass Off", can be seen sitting atop this progression of hilarity. Though only four letters, the terms are cumbersome and awkward when compared to the symmetry of lol or the repetition within haha. Their strange letter combination, which requires fingers being used across the board, makes them less common, therefore driving up their hilarity-response value.

Though the power of the four terms may be imbalanced while in lower case, once caps lock is activated they become essentially equal, allowing for interchangeability on the final rung of the hierarchy. It is important to note here that repeating the letter combination further with lol (lololol+nol...) and haha (haha+nha...), or combining rofl with lmao (roflmao) shows an increase in the individual's gauge of hilarity in any given situation. Generally speaking, bigger letters and longer phrases indicate a funnier comment. It can therefore be presumed that a long LOL, HAHA, or a straight ROFLMAO in caps lock is one of the highest honors given to jokes exchanged via "teh interwebs."

Though these terms vary in their power and frequency of use, they all share the same property of illustration. These abbreviations seek to show the giver of the joke what is happening to the receiver. The lols, rofls, and lmaos all clearly depict a physical action, and can therefore be seen as bridges within cyberspace, physically and visually connecting those who are communicating. This establishment of descriptors of an action is absolutely necessary when one considers what often qualifies as communication on the internet; meaning derived from no visual or auditory stimuli, simply written words. In this digital space these terms are used to physically reinforce the notion that on the other side of the computer screen lies a real human being, not an anonymous automaton.

The high speed pressure which has led to the creation of so many acronyms for humor-related words has also had a significant effect on the spelling of several short, common words. Though they may appear to be a gross manifestation of recklessness at the keyboard, the truth is that these "typos" have been misspelled so much that they are often purposefully spelled the wrong way. No meaning is lost in this rearrangement, removal, or replacement of the letters, though significant practicality and, I dare say, attractiveness is gained.

The simple word "the" is a great example of how language is affected through the medium one writes. Using pen and paper, for example, the word "the" is rarely, if ever, misspelled. Such an error could be viewed as an indication that the writer is inept. However, once we enter the digital world, where every letter literally lies at the writer's fingertips, misspelling is not only more acceptable, but so common that it warrants a new term of its own, the typo. Whereas errors in handwritten writings are deemed as mistakes of an intellectual nature, errors in digital writing are deemed as mistakes of a dexterous nature. Our minds think much, much faster than our hands are able to communicate, regardless of the medium, and so when the medium allows for more speed, via a keyboard, our brain trips up more often than before (or rather, our hands do). The word "the" is such a staple of the English language that it should then come as no surprise that it gains a new spelling in the digital world. After all, the more often the word is typed the more chances there are to misspell it.

"The" has now morphed into the word "teh" (pronounced phonetically) on the internet . Not only is it a typo, as mentioned before, but it is more often than not intentionally used in conjunction with web-related misspellings or new words. Phrases such as "teh interwebs" or "teh internets" or "you are teh pwnzorz" are a few common examples of such usage. The allowance of typos such as "teh" is likely due to the demand for speedy reactions over the course of internet conversation. The mutated word is especially common in online games, where one's ability to type can be the line between life and death. Worrying about spelling "the" right in the sentence "THE MONSTER IS KILLING ME" is a trivial matter compared to the decapitation of the player. "Teh" therefore becomes a sufficient substitute not only out of efficiency, but out of necessity. It's allowance is based on mutual understanding between players, or internet users, that getting across the message is more important than the way it is delivered.

While words as common as "the" were having their letters rearranged, words used as slang in the internet community were undergoing substantially larger reconstructions. The word "own" had long stood as a verb replacing "dominate" among internet gamers, and internet users at large. However, as with "the," frequent misspellings lead "own" to drop it's initial vowel for a nearby letter, p. Thus, from the hundreds of thousands of typos of "own" came a new word and sound to signify domination, "PWN." Pronounced pone, this new word gave a harsher, more commanding tone to a word from the old world from which it was rendered. As a verb, this new word is a full replacement for "own," as p replaces o in every tense. "I OWNED THAT GUY!" simply becomes "I PWNED THAT GUY!", and so forth. This new, albeit accidental, spelling of "own" allowed for the hard consonant of "P" to intensify the softer, less menacing word of "own" into a gritty, war-like word which serves better as a fight or post-fight utterance.

Often the shortest form of a word is one which is lacking all of its vowels. Though this may be a bit bewildering to new internet-language readers, the reasoning behind it is sound. Consonants are what make up the bulk of the parts of pronunciation in a word, tied together by vowel sounds. For such a word as "own," beginning with a vowel, one could not simply drop the "o" and create the word "wn." "Wn" is severely lacking in vowels, and though these words are used for written purposes on the internet, they are often phonetically integrated into spoken language. Our newly created word "wn" does not allow for such an advance to the real world, for the very reason that it is hardly able to be spoken (sound it out!). "P" is therefore used as a vowel replacement, even though the "o" sound still exists within the word. The hard sound of "P" followed by the "wuh-n" of the remaining letters seems to make for itself an invisible "o." The integrity of the old word is therefore conserved while the new meaning associated with the new sound is gained. This phenomenon can also be seen in other internet words which seek to gain effect not through typo, but through letter exchange.

All the aforementioned words have been born out of the need for speed through internet communication. The conflict between typed and written language can therefore be viewed primarily as a conflict between slower, less efficient, structured language and its hasty, efficient, and lax counterpart. However, there exist some variations in internet language which do not fit this overarching premise. The phenomenon of the "hai/xor" defies the implications given by the aforementioned words to show that perhaps, aside from efficiency, this new language also seeks to show more personality than its progenitor.

The words "hi" and "bye" are short. Based on prior evidence, one could assume that internet-speakers have either found some way to shorten these two words or have left them alone. However, as cruising on the internet will surely tell, these words have indeed been modified...yet have not been shortened. Rather, the composition of the word "bye" has done a strange letter swap and the word "hi" has actually gotten longer. Replacing the "ye" and "i" vowel sounds in these words comes the vowel combo "ai." Why, after all this effort truncating words and phrases, would internet language have elongated and changed two of the shortest and most frequently used words available? The effect of "hai" and "bai" on salutations and farewells deals nowhere within the realm of efficiency. The words seek to, through use of an unusual letter combination, provide an attractive stylized switch from the shorter and more efficient terms of old. With so much of communication being based on non-verbal clues, interacting through text alone can leave shorter conversations feeling void of personality and cold. By changing "bye" and "hi" to "bai" and "hai," the typist achieves a softer writing style which imparts a small amount of nicety into the conversation. The elongation of words in the face of mass excision can only suggest that in this new fast-paced, anonymity-ridden world, people are still attempting to emotionally connect and show others that they care.

Along the same lines of this empathetic elongation, the addition of "xorz" or "zorz" onto internet slang is used to change a verb to a noun, is typically applied to an individual, and attempts to meet the demands of personality creation. The verb PWN, as discussed earlier, means to dominate. Thankfully, under these internet grammar rules, pwn does not become pwner. This is likely due to the word's spoken resemblance to a laughable term from days of middle school, which no one, regardless of maturity, is immune to. The word instead becomes pwnzorz, meaning one who pwns. The usual word "rock" is likely to be given the same treatment. "To rock" shares a similar meaning with "to pwn," meaning to do well against. The term "roxxorz" is therefore a common reference to something, or someone, who has done well. The dropping of the "ck" can likely be attributed to the attempt at efficiency and symmetry that seems to be so prevalent in other internet terms. While internet words typically form as the result of needs for efficiency, when the typist seeks to become more involved with whomever they are speaking to, they are likely to use words that have mutated letter combinations or are elongated to show heavier emotional investment, imparting a sense of caring through this static medium.

The internet has sparked the evolution of conventional language toward a more efficient and less restrictive style of communication. Though overwhelmingly foreign to new readers, this seemingly chaotic language is adept at enabling quick and efficient exchanges by pairing mutual understanding with compact spelling. While this new language may stress efficiency above all else, there remains a striking amount of personality and emotional investment within the text, often at the expense of expediency, which conveys the user's need and want to remain connected despite the isolation associated with digital space. However, this preference for style and efficiency above grammar and structure may lead to the subversion of conventional language rules, and may therefore have rather discouraging effects on the real world. In future work, I plan to explore the potential negative impact this internet language may be having on literacy and formal written language, as well as behavioral tendencies which may develop due to the level of anonymity gained when communicating via the internet.

A meta-commentary is something you can use at the end of the paper to address what people reading it may be thinking. Our professor told us to have fun with it, so I had a hay-day and used swear words and your mother jokes as much as possible. Please comment!

META COMMENTARY

Skeptic #1: wtf?

Skeptic #2: Yarly.

Writer: Uhhhhm... excuse me?

Skeptic #1: (clears throat obnoxiously) Aside from your adamant refusal to include acronymized slander in your paper, I found your thoughts on caps lock to be a gross dramatization of the accidental toggle function key that so many of us have pressed and forgotten. So why don't you DIAF.

Writer: Well, n00b, first I did not include any slanderous acronyms, like wtf, stfu, and others because they follow the same course as the humorous acronyms, but in a negative direction. After understanding the creation of words like LOL I would assume the reader has the cognitive abilities to understand how wtf, stfu, and all your other colorful terms were brought to life. They are sprouted from the same tree of thought, after all.

In regards to caps, though it may be seen as a strict toggling function which aids in convenience for some of us, there is little doubt in my mind about the effects of typing in all caps. It carries heavier emotional weight. You've received an email with "caps screams" haven't you? How did it make you feel?

Skeptic #1: DON'T BRING MY MOTHER'S TYPED INFLECTIONS INTO THIS! SHE USES CAPS ONLY BECAUSE SHE LOVES ME!

Writer: Orly?

Skeptic #1: (glares)

Skeptic #2: Hey, nubtaco, speaking of ORLY, why didn't you address the virus-like tendencies of internet memes as they fly from their origins into the minds of the masses? These may just be ideas, but they have a curiously biological nature which you avoided entirely.

Writer: Since this essay was devoted primarily to the effects and creations of internet words, not their dispersion or movement, I chose to leave that out. Though you do raise a good point, and it may be something I address in the future.

Skeptic #1: Are you sure this isn't just an evolution of language affecting you and your nerdy-internet- game-playing-acne-ridden-scrawny-four-eyed-antisocial-clammy-handed friends? What makes you think this is a manual for internet language as us NORMAL folk see it?

Skeptic #2: OMGROFLMAO

Writer: I think it's important to note that regardless of whether or not this is an event that has breached the minds of those who remain disconnected, it still represents a startling evolution of language. Studying it could give us insights into how our NORMAL FOLK language will be effected when these gamer types you named become the driving generation. To dismiss it as a nerdy anomaly is imbecilic.

Oh, and just because I play games does not mean I am everything in that ridiculously long adjective train of a diatribe you produced. Why don't you ask your mother about my social skills and muscles, I'm sure she can give you an accurate representation of what I'm really like (gigantic wink).

Skeptic #1: NUMBER TWO. GET ON YOUR LOLLERSKATES AND BOARD THE ROFLCOPTER. I HATE THIS IGNORAMUS.

Skeptic #2: BRT.

Writer: KTHNXBAI.

LEGEND

Kthnxbai: okay, thanks, bye

BRT: Be right there

Lollerskates and roflcopter: An interesting evolution of the words, basically turned into rollers skates and helicopter. No idea as to why.

Nubtaco, n00b: short for newbie, one who is new and therefore probably bad at something

ORLY, YARLY: Oh really? And Yeah, Really. Came about with a strange picture of an owl (ORLY owl, if you wish to look it up). Simple shortening, as usual.

DIAF: Die in a fire. Declaration of malicious wishes.

STFU: Shut the * up. Simple acronym for a remarkably common phrase on the internet.

WTF: What the *. Used as either a question or an exclamation of discontent. Simple acronym.

TANK

The tank's job in left 4 dead is to incapacitate as many of the weak-bodied survivors as his steroid shrunken head can manage to locate. The beginning movie of Left 4 Dead actually touts a perfect saying for what you should always be doing when you see a tank.

Louis: RUN OR SHOOT!?.........RUN OR SHOOOT!?
Bill: BOTH.

If you are EVER fleeing in left 4 dead, swing your gun around like Rambo and spray in the direction of what you're fleeing from.

ON THAT NOTE.
When a tank arrives, be absolutely sure to stay away from cars and forklifts. The tank will punch these and launch them into your group, instantly incapacitating everyone who gets touched by them. Also, if at all possible, light the tank on fire. There are several ways to do this, the well known two being Molotovs and gas cans. However, if there is a flaming hobo barrel around, you can use it as a source of fire as well. It requires a bit of sacrifice as someone must stand right behind the barrel as the tank approaches. He will either punch you or climb onto the barrel, then punch you. Either way, he should light up and be dead within 60 seconds.

If you encounter a tank in a small area, be sure to melee him to get him to spread the damage around. Letting one person take the damage may be a good idea, but in advanced and expert they're basically guaranteed to die. Trying expert with only 3 survivors is a little like trying to disarm a nuclear weapon with your teeth.

Not a good idea.

Auto-shotties are the best way to take apart a tank. If everyone in the group has one you can blow through a tank in as little as 5 seconds. This does, however, take a hefty amount of cooperation.
As always, your group dynamic and "stickiness" will determine whether or not you manage a terribly placed tank fight.
Happy hunting!

Hunter

Are you the hunter or the hunted? This question may seem ridiculous in a ZOMBOCALYPSE (zombie apocalypse) but, when dealing with hunters, it is the ONLY question. You must learn to treat hunters like you would treat Pumas or Kodiak bears when faced with them in the wild. Those animals are hardwired to chase something that runs, and promptly tear it apart. Hunters are hardwired to chase survivors and promptly tear them apart, all the time, but can be defeated using the same techniques as you would against a Puma, Kodiak, or other large animal.

First, Listen for where the hunter may be. They run silently but as soon as they start crawlin around all creepy-like, they begin making kitty cat noises. Being aware of your predator allows you to prep for the confrontation. You don't need to pop pills or heal up, necessarily, but being aware of the location of the kitty will largely help your efforts to not die.

Second, use corners to make your target lose sight and HAVE to get close. Hunters get a large initial damage bonus if they land on you from a long leap, so shortening the gap may just save your life. Past that, hunters are great punching bags. Their soft hoodies allow you to maliciously drive the but of your rifle into them without breaking your nails. Using corners and walls, the hunter will eventually get close enough that you can punch his face without being injured. Also, if you've got one of the better weapons, wait for him to come around the corner and then treat him like you would an attacking puma.

Shoot him in the face.

Third, if you're out in the open, away from your friends, and you see a hunter, do NOT turn and run. Maintain eyes on the target. Open up by firing at the hunter, regardless of the distance, as being hit will cause them to leap away and come back for a retry (hopefully still far away). When you hear the scream and see the beast flying through the air, you have two options. First, sidestep. This only works if the hunter is rather far away because they have remarkable precision and speed. Just strafe out of the line of fire a few feet, then return to punch the Hunter's face and shoot him in the neck. Second, move TOWARD the leap. Hunters rarely go over your head, and that is not at all the intent here. Humans surviving animal attacks are often let go because they put up too much of a fight, not because they attempt to dodge and then run. Hunters function the same way. When he's flying toward you, walk forward, and when you can estimate he's about a second out from pummeling you, punch. I find that about 1/5 times this works for me and gets me a solid Jump Stop. It may not be a super high percentage, but learning how to work it even 20% of the time saves you and your teammates from death 20% of the time.

Hunt the hunters, then punch their necks and shoot their faces.
Just like pumas.

Smoker

Smokers are mild aggravations, at best. Their damage doesn't work from them acting solo, as a hunter, tank, or boomer's does. BUT. That is not to say that they're not formidable opponents. Smokers shoot their nasty tongues out and drag survivors away from the group. Occasionally, and unluckily, smokers will drag a friend off a ledge or through a fire or into a boomer's vomit. These are the sticky situations you ought to avoid. When you hear a smoker coughing, open fire where you see the green plumes of smoke or where you last heard the noise. They gimp along with a constantly tilted head, probably from the tobacco, and can be found on roofs, behind cars, or in forests. Smokers always spawn BEHIND the survivors. Hunters, boomers, and tanks, however, spawn in front of your merry band of travelers.

To deal with a smoker who has grabbed you, immediately spin so you can see the tongue and SHOOT IT! Smoker's tongues can be shot off of your friends by aiming at the tongue leading from your friend's torso to the smoker's mouth. In my experience, you can't shoot the tongue that is ON your friend, but can only punch it off. If you're far away from a buddy who is getting smokered, be sure to open fire on the pink line you can see leading him to the maw of the smoker.

On that note, whenever you're leaving an area where no one can return, make sure you all leave together. This is especially important in versus situations. While three people have jumped down, one may be lackadaisically checking out bricks on the walls and end up being smokered to a location no one can see or reach. This is, as you may suppose, bad news bears.

Shoot first, ask questions later. You are the only survivors.
Except for the dude in the church, but hey, he's a bastard.

Boomers

Chances are you haven't been vomited on by a morbidly obese person, or exploded them and gotten coated in their entrails. Left 4 Dead offers plenty of opportunities for you to do just that.

In case it was something you've been dying to do.

Boomers are rough. They are by far the most strategic of the zombie specials. Boomers come flying off roofs, tumbling through doorways, or jumping out from corners to vom all over you and your homies. When they throw up on you, or you shoot them to close, you get covered in boomer bile. Boomer bile, for whatever reason, is irresistibly tasty to zombies. Zombies will travel for miles to get to someone covered in boomer bile. Zombies run like Kenyans. Once they find that person, all they really want to do is lick it off, but they often work themselves into such a frenzy thinking about it that all they can do is scream and try to scrape it off your flesh.

Needless to say, this is not so fun.

If one person in your group gets vommed on, it is everyone's responsibility to guard that person from the flood of zombies that will try to lick her to death. Zombies have rough tongues, like cats.

When a person is covered in bile, shove them into a corner and have them melee like there is no tomorrow. Which, considering the situation, may not be far from the truth. Station one or two other survivors next to the person to help melee and blow the brains out of zombies, and place another survivor a bit away to offer some non-melee gun fun. Closets are also great cover for boomer situations. Back into a closet, two in back, two in front (crouched). The front peeps melee constantly while the back spray bullets forward. This works not only for boomers but also for epic events like exploding a wall or accidentally setting off a car alarm. It works in all situations, except those involving tanks.
If you hear a boomer, feel free to fire in the direction of the flatulence and belches. Boomers are delicate flowers, and as such are easily punctured. Bullets go through walls, doors, windows, and other zombies. Hunting rifles go through just about everything. Including delicate flowers. Spray bullets and you'll save your team a zombie rush.

I play WoW. I've played off and on since its debut in the MMO landscape. In that time period, I've only ever gotten one character to the level cap. Is this embarassing for me?

Perhaps.

But first, let me explain why I rarely reach the endgame.

I don't care. To phrase it less concisely, I don't care about epic phat purple loots, name titles, a flying mount that goes 280% faster, or about the size of your e-peen. I enjoy playing a game that is too much of a game for the majority of its users to handle.

I've played every class up to at least level 30. I've lived in Barrens Chat for years, and I still find Chuck Norris jokes enjoyable.

I created a Gnome Warrior named Tower and leveled him for months. Why? Because it's ironic.

I've played alliance. I made a dwarf paladin who, along with my brother, formed a guild called Hearth Bros. All we did was go invincible and teleport home when we were found by orcs, trolls, or what have you.

I'm about to tame a giant ostrich as a hunter pet. It's blue. It's a woman-bird. The percentage of all people who use this type of animal as a pet is, so far as I can tell, less than 1%.

I flew into the air to meet an enemy player. I have no parachute. I jumped off my mount, shot him in the face, and fell to my death. He regained all his hitpoints in less than 12 seconds.

When I go to raids, I scream. Often. I jibe people. People jibe back. We enjoy each other's company and killing demigods together more than the purples that drop from these fatties.

Why? Why am I doing all this?

Because I'm having fun.

Now, what is this...FUN? Fun has different meanings for different people. For Hardcore players, fun is often getting that next purple item, smashing someone's face over and over and tea-bagging their corpse, or screaming at people for ruining things. Fun is not created from an enjoyable action, but from an enjoyable reward. Every person has this kind of hardcore player inside of them but, I dare say, it is important to keep this player at bay.

Fun for me and other Hardcore Softiesis doing things that are...

fun.

See a cliff? Does it look like a long way down? Why not see if you can survive the fall!

See a horde of enemy players? All overpowered classes that quickly counter your own? Are you a healer? RUN INTO THEM!

Is that friend of yours Mind Controlled during a raid? Clearly, he needs to die. Race to the finish!

Competition in online games is not the only engine that drives people to dive deep into the crazy challenges that the developers throw at them. Curiosity, perhaps the most powerful of all human traits, is what makes people want to kill a god. It's what makes people stay up for a few hours past exhaustion.

But what happens when the curiosity dries up? Curious things are curious for a curiously short amount of time. We're all smart, we know how to use the GooG (google) to find information we need, and we want to move.

This is my fear, fellow Gamespotters. Once the curiosity is gone, because we've "experienced it all," do we become hardened? Does this game become less of a game and more of -- dare I -- a job?

It's no longer a game. Taking 25 people into a dungeon and having one thing go wrong ruins your REAL day. Some guy asks you for help, and your only response is how selfish he is to ask you for your time. How dare they? How dare all these people ruin your attempt to get that one new item, that one new trinket, that one new shred of pride.

I play WoW. I play Left 4 Dead. I play Fallout 3. I play anything and everything. I play a LOT.

AND YET, I can proudly say I've not lost myself. I've now done nearly every dungeon in WoW. I've played every class, and yet, I'm still not done. Not because I need some phat loot from 25-man Naxxramus. Hardly.

It's because, over the course of the past 4 ish years, I've made friends. I've gotten closer to my brother, who left shortly after we got the game. I've met the people I play with (terrifying, I know) and now spend at least a weekend or two visiting them per year. They even came down for my graduation.

Remember where you come from, gamespotters. In whatever genre you play, remember that you started out as a complete idiot. That you were there to have fun. That you didn't know that you were meant to care about purple things. Then, once the curiosity dries up, get your nostalgia on. Put on the newb attitude from years ago and approach your virtual world with a fresh, friendly, and beautiful face.

Once you go hardcore, you get ugly.

HEYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Mindforge Technologies is a premier custom gaming computer builder based out of Cedar Falls, IA. Started in June 2009, Mindforge Tech is the brain child of three brothers between the ages of 19 and 23. MFT is out to rule the gaming computer market and create a group of Mindforgers who are a great deal of fun to play with. We've begun creating a database of great people to play with called Mindforge Clans. Individuals who join the clan are privy to special offers that general computer buyers will not receive, and, more importantly, are able to play with the three brothers and the rest of the Mindforge Clan. Our interest is in having a great time. Whether you're a total newb or you've got headshotting skills of a Vietnam War sniper, we want you. We're avid gamers and think it's high time computers were built by those who care for their performance most.