Inquiry, correction, and admonishment to jai:
1. How do you figure "Grammar Girl" has any more right to make claims than say... me?
2. According to a poster who cited the OED on the previous page, the word "texted" has been around since the 15th century.
3. "Unscrupulous" means lacking the ability or desire to distinguish between right and wrong. I'm fairly sure that there is no evidence of anyone here lacking either. Don't use words you don't understand.

"That was so fun."
Do you mean to suggest that there is something wrong with this phrase, Mark?

I don't understand the debate. Is the question whether we should pronounce "texted" as two syllables? Has anyone tried pronouncing it as a single syllable? You can't pronounce a "d" sound directly after a "t" sound. I suppose you could pronounced it as "texd" making the second "t" silent, but that's just silly.

That's an amusing question. Does the side that he takes automatically become less valid?
In all seriousness, why even acknowledge his existence? He's already deemed himself irrelevant by interjecting pointless drivel into a serious discussion. Who are we to grant him any more credence than he gives himself?

Correction:
Douglas, I object to your supposition that simply because people are dead, famous, and considered intelligent, they are somehow wiser than people whose wisdom you have little basis to gauge.

Herein lies the evolution of "stamina" from it's Latin origin "st?men":
http://www.languagehat.com/archives/003141.php
It's not entirely clear from the above, but I believe that this usage mutated separately from the "stamen" of a plant.
Actually, I wonder if "stamen" mutated at all. I can imagine the person studying flowers looking at the small strand within a flower and thinking, "that looks like a thread, I think I'll name it using the Latin word for 'thread.'"

Again, following a simplistic system would be the ideal. According to the rules of English (ha, like English has rules, better to call them "guidelines"), the plural of "stamen" should be "stamens" and not "stamina." Otherwise, when we speak of the "stamina of flowers," how do others know if we speak of their ability to thrive, or the protrusions within them? (See, the points are so boring without the spice of sarcasm.)

"I know that we won’t go back to speaking the original forms of the English language, but that doesn’t mean that I cannot feel the need to maintain the language that many hold to be correct."
This is what I find ridiculous, and therefore, deserving of ridicule:
Imagine that the entire history and the entire future of language is a long, constantly morphing line. You've decided that this line should stop at a particular point, simply because you exist there. That's rather arbitrary, and supremely arrogant, isn't it?

Douglas, I object to your supposition that simply because people are dead, famous, and considered intelligent, they are somehow wiser than living people to whom you have little cause to know the wisdom of.

hot4teacher, I need to inform you that you've given me all of the ammunition I need to quite effectively ream you, and a strong desire to do so, but I'd like to keep such invective off of a forum dedicated to intellectual topics.

"I’ve (and you have) provided several examples of how modifying English can be useless, or even changing it for the worse. I don’t see how the use of ‘forums’ instead of ‘fora’ could possibly benefit the English language, other than making it easier for people who are ill-educated or ignorant enough not to know the correct plural of words like ‘forum’."
Because, if we're going to push for unobtainable ideals, the simplest system is best? Because people should not be marked as lacking in education simply because they don't find the subject of English endlessly fascinating, and thus do not know every single rule in our hopelessly entangled language? Or, because the correct plural form in English IS "forums"? It's also "fora," but that's irrelevant to my point.
What prompted the sarcasm to which you so strenuously object is simple; you proposed to protect a language from the very process by which it became the language that you wish to protect. It's hard to point out the obvious without being sarcastic about it. It's even harder when you claim to want to preserve English in it's current state when the current state includes "forums" as a proper plural.

"I had a problem with the fact that you set out to simply take the piss at me with your sarcasm and smart-arsed attitude."
What, so my point is irrelevant just because I used sarcasm to make it? Also, I use sarcasm quite regularly in person, and frequently to make points, so I doubt that I would hesitate just because you happen to be easily offended.

Oh, it's fine is it? Well, I'm glad it's fine that you told me to "get the fuck out" over a misunderstanding that you could have prevented by noting the time stamps of the posts.
In that case, I think it's just fine if whatever I say happens to be insulting to you. That's part of free speech too, after all.
I'm also glad that your atheism is somehow relevant to your belief in free speech and/or your lack of regret in voicing your opinion.

Back on topic... exactly how is it changed for the worse? Seems to me that using "forums" as the plural of "forum," and doing the same for similar words, is the best way to avoid mutilation of English, since that is the most common method of pluralizing in English.

My second post was in addition to the first. I did not refresh the site in between making the two, so I had no idea you had posted, thus your post between them had no bearing on the second post.
I tried to forestall that on my last post by refreshing before I posted; but, somehow the comment to which I'm currently responding was not visible before I posted my last comment despite the time stamps showing yours having been up for eight minutes before mine.

"I cannot control the environment in which I was brought up; this doesn’t stop me from believing that the way that languages alter (incorrectly imo) is wrong. If I could, I would ensure that everyone speaks the language correctly and at least attempt to prevent further deterioration of modern linguistics (part of the reason why I am on this discussion board)."
So, let me get this straight, you think that by complaining about the way language mutates, and has always mutated, you are going to fix it?
If your point is that it's an ineffective method, then I agree. If your point is that, because it's an ineffective method, we should stop doing it, then I have to ask by what means you intend to enforce this change.