greg (11/10/82)
I agree. In addition to "its" and "it's", some of the net correspondants don't correctly use "then" (meaning "following in time") and "than" (meaning "differs from" (well, usually)), and "there", they're", and "their". It may be a small thing, but if someone can't pay attention to the small things in their (not there or they're) writting, I wonder about how much attention they pay to their coding practices..... -- Greg Noel, NCR ....!ucbvax!sdcsvax!greg
mem (11/11/82)
c Re: Greg Noel's article about spelling and Grammar: you spelled "correspondents" and "writing" WRONG. Was this a taunt ?
thomas (11/11/82)
I think we should all keep track of who thinks that their submissions to the net aren't important enough to warrant checking the spelling and grammar, and then just not read their articles. If they don't care, neither do I! =Spencer
djb (11/12/82)
How's that again? I posted an article saying that I don't favor public flagellation of those that commit spelling and/or grammatical errors. And that I, for one, am willing to give the miscreants the benefit of the doubt by classifying such acts as the product of zeal and enthusiasm, provided the guilty parties are not chronic abusers of our lovely language. Even though I personally take the time to compose articles using an editor, and check uncertain words with my ever-present dictionary. Then I followed up with a short, silly quote that pokes fun at the immense variability of our spelling rules (such as they are). Suddenly I'm labeled as someone who cares not a whit for grammar and spelling, and have been black-marked twice for my two articles espousing this position. This "information" is dispensed into mainstream of the net, passed off as a summary of the "debate". Follow-up articles indirectly point their finger at me, jeeringly suggesting possible newsgroups of banishment and other well-deserved punishments. It is obvious to me that I, and likely others, have been wronged. Those of you that have done so (and you know who you are) most certainly owe me (us) a public apology. I do not object to your position, if fact, I can in many ways sympathize. Nonetheless, you are in no way entitled to misrepresent me, my opinions, or my articles to anyone. Let them read for themselves and decide. If proper treatment of language is so important to you, should you feel any less devoted to proper treatment of information? And any less concerned for the accuracy of what you say, and those you libel in the process? David Bryant cbosg!djb
markm (11/12/82)
Why is it that some of those in net land take everything so personally. Saying that the net isn't important does NOT imply the same of the readers of said net. If all the people who make ANY spelling errors got fed up and left the net, it would be real DULL. Same goes for all the people who make NO spelling errors. I guess there are two schools of thought - those who see the net as entertainment, and those who see it as a rigid communication forum. I'll admit that some of the newsgroups DESERVE correct spelling - stuff like the UNIX wizards and the like. But the discussion groups are just that. I just can't see wasting time correcting spelling for an article to net.jokes. If I were to post something of vital importance to the net's programmers, something that would be copied and passed down from generation to generation, I'd get the spelling right. If some net-ers want to take it personally and net read the articles of those like me who don't want to waste time checking spelling on transient communication, fine. Then we'll do the same of their stuff (probably). I can just see a little computer mail war shaping up. This would not only be childish, but also the waste of an otherwise entertaining resource. Also keep in mind that many articles responded to are on quite emotional topics. It follows that spelling can go out the window if the author is 'on a roll'. Another practice which I have noticed of late is that of sending 'mis-spellers should be shot' mail to respective net-landers (like me - just once though). Hasn't there been enough back-and-forthing on this topic that user's individual mail need not be cluttered with the rantings of such bombastic, half-witted fanatics?? If someone posts a article with mistakes, cutting him down the next day will not make things better. It has even been suggested on the net to put mistakes in ON PURPOSE, just to drive these types nuts ... hmmmm. Oh well, flame on - as I'm sure you will - just don't correct my spelling. Wearing my asbestos flak-jacket ... MSMiller GR Concord, MA
rggoebel (11/13/82)
You've got to be kidding? It's a joke? There can't be any truth to their requests? In a message about grammar and spelling, "writting" is not acceptable. It would be nice if everyone using this news service attempted to be clear about their meaning, but the overhead on messages about bad spelling and grammar is a waste (sorry about this message, no others will follow). Don't we all agree that good grammar and spelling are good things? Let's leave it at that.
soreff (11/16/82)
I'd like to know the general opinion on what to do about citing articles with
spelling errors. Is it reasonable to alter a quote by correcting the spelling
within it? I am assuming that it is the content of the item that is of interes
-Jeffrey Soreffadvisor (11/19/82)
hese machines, not tire my fingers. Many a time I will leave out apostrophes, or shorten words like 'are' to 'r', etc., and skip 'unnecessary' words -- this does not detract from the understandability of my messages, but, rather, makes them easier to type. By the way, 'writing' is incorrectly spelled in your message. scott owen utcsstat!advisor
laura (11/26/82)
maybe this should move to net.nlang. laura creighton decvax!utzoo!laura
jcwinterton (12/06/82)
Recently, the Book of the Month Club distributed copies of Strunk and White as part of their pro bono publico policy. In view of previous discussions (at least 6 months ago), I find this little volume a gem and very handy to have. It is nice to have such a compact grammar for General American. John Winterton.