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.