Quote Originally Posted by bistro
d0 U mean p€€Pull wh0 tYp€ liK€ tHis t0 maK€ U tHink th€Y aR€ r€allee K00L and l33t?

I hate that....when I see posts like that I feel like sending Mavis Beacon over to their house and have her pour gasoline on their lawn....
On the scale of linguistic complexity, basic leet is about on a par with pig Latin, and with five minutes' practice just about anyone can crank out elegant prose such as: y c@N'+ p30p13 R3kO9nIZ3 +eh 834UTy uv 1337??? (Apologies to acconav of the Straight Dope Message Board, from whom I lifted this example.) Recognizing this, some 1337!575 are promoting "advanced" leetspeek, which they believe takes things to a new level. Sample: 4|)V4|\|C3D l3e+$peA|< i$ whEn J00 +4lK L1K3 t|-|15. t0 u|\|d3r$+@|\|D jOo |\/|u5+ be lEET. 1f J00 4r3 NO+ lEe+ jOO C@|\|N0T 5p3A|< 0r ReAd +|-|I5. Stumped? I wasn't either. But I bet a lot of parental units are scratching their heads.

At this point you may be thinking: This is |-|0r535|-|17. That's what you're supposed to think, ancient one. Leet is for kids. The whole point is to communicate only with the chosen few, and to frustrate everybody else. That's why there's little danger of leet taking over the English language, which by contrast is useful because it's so widely understood. It's possible that bits of leet will migrate into the mainstream; after all, one of the best-known expressions in English, OK, entered the language during a leetlike fad for silly initials that flourished in U.S. newspapers in the late 1830s (OK stood for "oll korrect"). But so far I'm not seeing much mention of d00dz in the New York Times.

Leet is a game at which more than one generation can play, for better or worse. In a recent discussion of leet on the SDMB, members amused themselves with remarks such as: 13375Þ33|‹ ¡5 π07 \/\/31¢0/\/\3 µ3®3 (Jeff Olsen). This inspired the snappy rejoinder 7®|_| |)47, 5|_|¢|<4 (mouthbreather), leading fallom, the 1337!57 who had started it all, to concede, y0ur 1337 0wnz0r5 m1n3. 1 4dm17 d3f347 (the 0r5 is usually ignored). But the most typographically impressive comment came from eunoia: £==7§¶=@/‹ ¿‡<=§ µ= @ 3@§§‡>= #=@Ð@(c)#=. (Hints: = is E, ‡ is I, > and < are both V.) A bit cranky, but anyone over 40 who's gotten this far will no doubt agree.

--CECIL ADAMS
from http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030110.html