Okay...a book advocates using exclamation marks in e-communication, the author disagrees. Fine. However, the poetic little rumination on why we use the ! in texts and emails was pathetic. "It used to be that words had weight because it took a gaggle of monks to write it down?" Give me a BREAK. Plenty of things have been jotted throughout time (if I remember correctly, the original cuniform was used for quickly-out-of-date accounting such as "how many sheep today?")...making copies of tomes was always the exreme end of the written word. Besides, the ephemeral nature of the communication is poorly correlated with its volume, since the spoken word is the most fleeting form of communication there is. However, most of us choose our words carefully, expressively, and worry about our impact on others. Oh, and we don't always shout.

My guess is that the ! in text is advocated mostly because the text message and email ARE so gray, and so short. That is, you used to have no need of ! in your prose because you could take the time to contextualize and explain your exciting idea. However, a text message is not a novel (unlike this post), so I can see why there would be good reason to advocate a resurgence of punctuation meant to convey tone. If you want to be understood, what's the alternative?

Oh yeah. Emoticons.

>v<<<>v<>vv>>>vv<v­ v v v>!!!
( translation: a terra cotta sacrificial urn is worth WAY more than 3 bushels of cereal!!!)

P.S. As i see you have trouble gleaning meaning from text... I THINK YOU'RE A MORON!

First of all, if you're going to quote someone, make sure you are exact. I would suggest copying and pasting. i.e. "(Imagine a team of tonsured monks toiling for decades on an illuminated manuscript that read, "WTF … c u l8r?")", not ' "It used to be that words had weight because it took a gaggle of monks to write it down?" '
Secondly, learn to recognize a joke when you see one. Would you argue that blondes are actually statistically no dumber than red-heads?
Thirdly, (and I can't believe I'm getting sucked into this) from the inception of the Roman Catholic Church to the Renaissance, literacy was a skill monopolized by the church, and the role of scribe was limited to monks and clergy,. But feel free to nitpick by referencing an obscure Sumerian system of accounting that is all but irrelevant to Rubin's thesis., The "copying of tomes", which you misclaim to have been so unusual, since the period of time when the Church ruled pen and paper was all but devoid of fresh thought (why it's called the Dark Ages) was a lengthy endeavor, Jake's joke is that writing worthy of the labor's of old scribery were serious, and that our overusage of exclamations render our messages silly, or, if you prefer, vice versa.
Next, it is unwise to contradict yourself at all, let alone in the same paragraph. (see: "Besides, the ephemeral nature of the communication is poorly correlated with its volume, since the spoken word is the most fleeting form of communication there is. However, most of us choose our words carefully, expressively, and worry about our impact on others. Oh, and we don't always shout.") I don't even know what you're trying to convey, actually. If you mean that it's obvious that speech is ephemeral, then you may be beyond counsel. Yes, texting is meant to simulate speech, but it is still writing. Should the dialogue in a play not be subject to tasteful punctuation, either?
Though you e-shout that "the text message and e-mail ARE so gray" Rubin's point that the quality of writing should be unaffected by the canvas upon which it is printed is ... well, actually an argument. Prose is prose whether on screen or sheet. The abundance of electronic communication (is THAT what you meant by poorly correlated to its volume?) is what lures the writer (or in your case reader) into the malaise of poor writing (or reading).
I suggest you reread the article more considerately, and control any future urge to anonymously attempt superiority, lest you seek to reek further embarassment upon yourself again. (How DID you do on the reading comprehension section of your SATs?) At the least, temper your tone, if not for your sake than for mine, as I find misplaced acerbity such as yours to be an injustice which must be matched.
Or feel free to overuse "bangers", Mangar.
see you later!! Hope to hear from ya!! Doesn't this make you feel like a midwestern soccer mom?!

Hmm...temper my tone? Okay. Good advice. Let's both follow it.

"Superiority" aside, here's another attempt to lay down my thoughts, if you'll allow me a second chance.

First, I think the author's theory about why we use lots of "bangers" in e-communication (where we didn't need them before) is largely without merit in an empirical sense. The way I understand the argument, it centered around the correlation between the permanence of the communication (or effort required to make it in the first place) and the volume (meaning "loudness") necessary to make it heard. The correlation doesn't hold up when comparing quick and easy vocal speech with written communication. Vocalizations aren't necessarily loud because they are quick and easy. Increasingly easy printing from the middle ages to now hasn't made the use of "bangers" any more necessary, either. (If their usage has increased, I would propose we chalk it up to the fact that poor writing with lots of !!! can get published, not because the good stuff needs the punctuation.)

As an empiricist, I suppose it makes me angry that someone would take such an authoritative tone about why a phenomenon occurs, simply because they claim authority on the subject. I feel especially motivated to respond when the hypothesis laid down falls apart quickly as soon as you consider the logical consequences of the hypothesis being true. Hence, perhaps, the vehemence of my response.

Second, here is an alternate causal relationship between bangers and text messages, which I think holds up just as well or better that the author's, given the data (or scarcity of it). Text messages are not essays, novels, or other long bits of writing which can use "show don't tell". They are more like bits of conversation. However, conversation has the advantage of carrying much, much more information than the words themselves due to vocal inflection, tone, timing, and (in person) facial expression and body posture. A text message is out of luck on both fronts, then...no context, no inflection. So, I see where one could make the case that it's forgiveable to begin using expressive punctuation in text messages in a way that would be inappropriate in longer communication, regardless of its permanence.

i think that would look nice with my exclamation points?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!