Vladimir S. Oka said:
I don't think spelling and grammar are at issue here.
They became so only because someone pointed them out, and thus the analysis
started. But we see a gazillion articles a day with bad spelling and
grammar, and in general we don't worry about it. (And rightly so.)
What was at issue was the attitude, which might be paraphrased along these
lines: "hey, you, give me what I need, and if you can't, drop dead." Well,
not quite as bad as that, perhaps, but it certainly had a very aggressive
flavour.
On the spelling/grammar thing: we shouldn't forget that we adopt spelling
and grammar rules for a *reason* - i.e. to facilitate smooth and seamless
communication. It is true that it takes W seconds longer to write an
article if you choose to take time and trouble to get the grammar and
spelling right - but these W seconds are well-spent, as putting your
article into a reasonably canonical form will save every single one of your
N readers an average of R seconds each in "decoding" the article.
If W < N * R, as it generally is, then the result is an overall time saving
for humanity.
Also remember that, if you need help, it's a good idea not to jar off the
people from whom you are asking that help! Nobody is going to care about
the odd tyop, because most of us can easily glark what is meant from the
context, but when someone systematically sets out to be as opaque as
possible, 50m3 d00D5 g37 4 1i771e 4nn0y3d, and with good reason.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
