Purism and the Public..

A primary attribute that one must possess if one desires to be good company at the chat window online, is the ability to type like a complete retard. Of course, the choice of the word might be make some sensitive soul gasp and the people for human rights might even scorn at it, declaring it as a public outrage, but I think they are only too eager to draw conclusions and categorize everything. Sometimes one should just analyze things from the outside, and take them for their face value.
Just analyze the word in question for a moment, it goes "reee-taahhrrrdd", the sound has a funny tinge to it, if you know what I mean. To be more visual on that point, think of a person with a long face, wide open eyes, and a gaping mouth who talks very slowly as though to savor every word that escapes his mouth. Or if you haven't been able understand this, just think of Goofy and save me the trouble of making one more feeble attempt at a nonsensical description. Now with this in mind take a look at the following conversation:
"Hiiiiiii!!!!!!!!!!"
"Heyyyyyyyy, how r u???????"
"i m guddddd!!!!!! u????????"
"i m gr8888888!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Notice how each statement is prolonged, how each word is expressed slowly and steadily as though in an attempt to savour it.
A single question mark indicates that the statement is interrogative; two-three of those means that the person is really curious; but filling up line after line with "?" simply indicates that intervention from the asylum is of the essence.

Such chats, however, appear to be the norm online these days. And thus no matter how hard one tries, one is always faced with the rather tricky question of whether or not to be retarded; follow the norm and be normal. Although most of the public does not face much difficulty in making a choice, those that are most severely affected by this dichotomy are the purists - whether to write such language and use such syntax to seek acceptance of the public, seek normalcy, or not?
It was a similar sort of question about whether to or not to die that often lead Hamlet to his famous soliloquys - and a reservation in the looney bin owing to those. For although by one mere glance at the question, a by-stander would comment, “What-ho! It’s simple”, and go on to wonder what a mutt-head that Hamlet - or whoever that was – might have been, because he couldn’t make an obvious choice. But if that accomplished by-stander puts even a single of his grey cells to work on the point, his answer would seemingly encompass both the options, with no favourability for either one of them, and the gravity of Hamlet’s dilemma would dawn on to him.
A similar status prevails of the purist: the choice between sanity and sanatorium (of the mental kind) is not an easy one for him, and following a similar procedure on the lines outlined above even the dumbest by-stander would see the gravity of his dilemma, too.