Good story.
I agree that some sort of emotive tool helps in textual relationships, but "LOL" overdoes it, and "LMAO" even more so. The subtler "<g>" or an emoticon like
is more proportional for the actual intent most of the time.
As even the apologist in the article notes, "'Lol' means 'yes, I understand that was funny, but I'm not really laughing'."
-- OK ...then why would you claim you are?
And elsewhere down the page:
"For example, if I had my bike stolen, my friend might reply 'LOL'. It helps overcome an awkward moment."
-- it does?
Inventing new words or code is fine with me; just don't claim you're doing something that is not what you're doing.
My favorite bugaboo in internet speak is the abbreviation "u" for "you". Looks like you're either a three-year-old just learning to talk, or else addressing a Burmese man.
<g>