Tilandra, As a college English teacher, I share your frustration at the decline of the level of literacy at the professional level. I also agree that the introduction and wide-spread adoption of the highly informal cvomputer and Internet culture has hastened much of this decline in the levels of professional literacy. Such a slackening of professional standards of communication is deplorable. To be fair, however, we "guardians of literacy" must also admit the positive aspects and opportunities that such technology offers not only to us rhetorical types, but to the potentialities of human communication as well. Firstly, the advent of word processing, with its introduction of instant update and ease of correction, has improved the mean level of written communication. For whereas the typical writer before the mid-1980s had to write out/type his whole text and print it in order to see if he made any errors, and then use a cumbersome system of white-out or mechanical correction to update his essay, now the general writer (who has always been "lazy" about correction) can correct the sentence/paragraph level mistakes as easily as he/she can type. True, this tends to make writers only mediocre as few are willing to look at grander or more holistic types of corrections, but the overall average level of composition does improve. Thus, to oversimplify, computers have made poorer writers better, but better writers poorer. this levelling, however, is democratic, and should put better writers on guard for slipping into mediocrity--a practice they would do in any case as this vigilance is part of what makes them better writers. Moreover, the primarily written (as opposed to oral or visual) nature of things like e-mail, MOOs, MUDs, or chat rooms forces a society overly enamored with visual representation to recognize (even indirectly) the continued importance (if not primacy) of the written word. In these media, the individual respresents him/herself almost exclusively in the rhetoric created by the written word. Emoticons and asuch may help, but remain insufficient to convey the breadth of human communication. How here hasn't been stung by writing a humorous or ironic e-mail to someone who took offense at what we meant as a joke? E-mail calls its user back to the age-old requirement of being careful (at least rhetorically, if not grammatically) with the language we use. This return to an understanding of the basically rhetorical nature of the world stands as a definite (not spelled "definate"--a pet peeve) boon to all who love words, both professionally and privately. Certainly the decline of rigid grammar is something to concern us; however, rigid grammar rules (a historical construction born of 18th and 19th century classism and imperialism, and not innate to languages anywhere--compare Shakespeare and Chaucer as examples) have often dissuaded otherwise intelligent individuals from expressing themselves as clearly and directly as they might have. Thus, I personally (but guarded nevertheless), applaud the OED (Oxford English Dictionary,) that bastion of linguistic conservativeness, for finally re-admitting the split infinitive into the canon of "appropriate" language. Alfred the Great, Chaucer, and Shakespeare used them, but 18th century neo-Latin prudes thought them vulgar. Personally, I wish to boldly rush in where these "grammatical" angels have feared to tread. But, like you, I do sometimes worry about the excesses of modernity. Don't "lighten up," but do be open to the benifits of change. my two cents respectfully, --lb