Textspeak is not universally (sic)-worthy, apparently

"Okay. So. Like, right now, for example, the Haiti-ans want to come to America...but some people are all 'What about the strain on OUR resources?'"

...Sorry 'bout that. I just realized as I began to write that I frequently want to begin a blog post with "So." SO. PERIOD. And I'm sure it's because of the mammoth influence of Clueless on my speech (see above quote). So I will try not to say "So-period" all the time. However colon I do want to share an interesting grammatical tidbit with you, which also has interesting cultural implications. In my searching on the internets, I came across this article from the Miami New Times Blogs. Aside from the controversy over whether or not there is discrimination based on sexual orientation going on in the case, there is the more troubling issue of the text message transcriptions in the article.

I realize that text message quotes are only going to become a bigger part of our (news) lives as politicians, celebrities, and other public figures are caught in red-handed guilt for whatever peccadillo because of ridiculous, incriminating text messages. They are the new secret Nixon tapes of the investigative justice process. So I suppose I should just make peace with the fact that famous, wealthy, successful people use "u" to mean "you" and "ur" to mean "you are" or "your" (further inflaming people's confusion with the distinction between the two). Personally, I think all this sounds positively cro-magnon, but you can't stop the onward march of progress, right?

That being said, what is most interesting to me about this blog going over incriminating text messages in a domestic abuse case involving a high-profile gay couple in Miami is the newsblog's decision to place (sic) in the following quote:

On March 20, Peña sent a third text message containing the threat, "If and when I'm evicted u will be expose (sic) for all to c and know ur true character. Who u truly are. Ponder that. Is it worth it?"

I get that "expose" is (sic) because it is an infinitive rather than a participle, as it should be. But what I don't understand is why "to c" and "ur" and "u" are not also considered (sic)? Does (sic) only refer to grammatical mistakes/variations and not spelling mistakes? I didn't think so (and Wikipedia agrees with me). I actually find the uneven application of (sic) by the writer to be more disturbing than the slow slide into cro-magnon oblivion of our written language. It points to an even larger and more serious lack of education and critical thinking/editing ability.

So as my dad used to say, "Put your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye." These are the intellectual endtimes.