[net.religion] sic

toddv@tekmdp.UUCP (Todd Vierheller) (07/27/83)

Tim is right in saying that "sloppy language" undermines an argument.
(I assume he meant mistakes concerning spelling and grammer.)
But quoting an argument while calling attention to each minor misspelling
and diction error is probably not from a sincere desire to strengthen that 
argument.  Yes, it does encourage proofreading.  Personally, I don't
appreciate that kind of encouragement.

While some might like being publicly ridiculed over non-relevant parts
of their statements ("to make their arguments seem more sound"), I'll
bet most don't.

Tim is mainly upset because I didn't send him mail.  I don't remember mentioning
his name in my letter.  I thought the use of "sic" was
widespread.  Apparently not.  Sorry you felt personally maligned Tim; that
was not my intention.  

Send flames to the net unless you wnat me to see them quickly. 

                                  Then send them to:

                                  Todd Vierheller

UUCP:	...!{ucbvax or decvax}!teklabs!tekmdp!toddv (ignore return address)
CSNET:	tekmdp!toddv @ tektronix
ARPA:	tekmdp!toddv.tektronix @ rand-relay

smb@ulysses.UUCP (07/29/83)

Let me make a suggestion.  The use of the word 'sic' by newspapers, etc.,
is intended to show that a particular error was committed by the original
author, and not by the transcriber, proof-reader, typesetter, etc.  But
these folks don't have an all-electronic medium!  If I, using my text editor,
copy someone's article into my reply, the chance of me introducing spelling
errors is quite low.  I suggest, then, that those of us who do use editors
when composing articles refrain from gratuitous modifications; we're not
going to blame you.  And for those who don't use editors -- do so!  It lets
you correct spelling errors, grammatical errors, etc.