jk3k+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) (11/01/89)
In article <4487@deimos.cis.ksu.edu> ksh@phobos.cis.ksu.edu (Karl S.
Hagen) raves about ``people who don't look at an article for what it
contains/means, but look at it for how it is written.'' Come on Karl,
do you really think people go around reading postings just to find
spelling or grammar mistakes? Give us a break. If someone complains
about your spelling or grammar, it may be because they and the other
thousands of readers can't understand what you wrote. Why should i
waste my time trying to decipher a post written by some jerk who doesn't
care enough to make it parseable on the first pass?
I understand that it may be difficult for you to remember the spellings
of 12-letter foreign-looking words. If you're unsure of a spelling, do
what you were taught in elementary school and _use a dictionary_. That
way you'll learn it, and know it next time, rather than remaining
ignorant.
But my real peeve is about the small words that you're supposed to have
learned in elementary school. An amazing number of people don't
understand that "its" is the possessive of "it", and "it's" is a
contraction of "it is", and apparently they don't care to find out.
This is understandable if you're still in junior high, or English isn't
your native language, but for grown men and women who supposedly have
three-digit IQ's it's pretty sad. For those of you who cut second
grade, "their" is the possessive of "they", "they're" is a contraction
of "they are", and "there" is an adverb, the opposite of "here". Get
them straight. It might not matter if you read by saying words out
loud, but it sure matters to me and most readers.
Note: "you" is impersonal and doesn't refer to Karl, unless of course
you're reading this on alt.flame.akf@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Jay Hinkelman) (11/01/89)
In article <IZHdmmi00VoE012mkE@andrew.cmu.edu> jk3k+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) writes: >Come on Karl, do you really think people go around reading postings >just to find spelling or grammar mistakes? Then, in article <28610@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>, nienart@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Mary (Not J.Nienart) Rodes) writes: <This is fucking incredible. You're flaming someone about their supposedly <bad grammar? Jeez, if you're trying to teach someone grammar, yes, GRAMMAR, <at least spell it correctly! Well, Joe, I think that answers your question. Amazing, isn't it, how we don't even have to know a person for him or her to sink below our expectations? -- Jay Hinkelman, akf@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (11/01/89)
Welllll, it's an unfortunate fact of life these days that "illiterates are people too," and the Net must accomodate quite a few rocket scientist illiterates within its copious skirts. Face it, the people with Net access weren't usually hired for their penmanship or spelling. Nothing to be done; the only thing generally agreed on is that reaming people out for it just makes things more unpleasant all round. Good grammar and spelling are nice things to have; but not quite so nice when we act like prigs about it and scorn those less accomplished. If you have ever seen original MSS by famous authors, you know misspellings are rife. Our role models had the luxury of hard working editors to clean up their product; today's electronic immediacy wipes that out. The only advice I would give posters is to try and READ what you wrote before finally posting it! Nevah hoit! -- "Of course, this is a, this is a Hunt, you | Tom Neff will -- that will uncover a lot of things. | tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET You open that scab, there's a hell of a lot of things... This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves." -- RN 6/23/72