I actually agree with you on the first point, I was leaning more towards functional literacy. In the sense that yes, we're literate because we can understand wh

I actually agree with you on the first point, I was leaning more towards functional literacy. In the sense that yes, we're literate because we can understand what someone means when they say, "sry my b", but I don't understand how OP can expect the widespread adoption of that style of communication to increase one's functionally literate understanding of, say, as mentioned elsewhere in this chain, a court order, a lease you sign with your landlord, or what is actually being said in a news article. That functional bit is, in point of fact, more of what the article is about. Edit: You took my comment too literally and missed the overall point. I didn't even intend to judge those who don't text like I do, hence my highlighting that it's not a conscious effort on my part. And, yes, I suppose that quite common acronyms are fine - I had hoped that it was obvious that I was referring to less common acronyms, but perhaps failed there (and still may be with this comment, c'est la vie). But thanks for kinda painting me like a grammar snob? Edit 2: Some other words for clarification, since I guess I'd better be extra careful...