Making posts readable

[Zap657]

I'm just going to have a moment here to talk about a pet peeve of mine: I'm tired of freaking unreadable posts!

Some members (I'm not going to name names) should actually try the "preview post" button instead of the "post reply" button, to reread and check if their posts are readable and make sense. Something I do every post. Common post errors include:

-Not capitalising the word "I" I assume most of you have passed grade 1.
-No punctuation, it can get really irritating not knowing when one phrase ends and the other begins.
-OMG Teh noobzsorasxxxcvnc FTW!!@#@ LGAJLGJLDJGLSJG lolololollllolool1!1 (haven't seen much of this one here.......Yet)

Just because we're on the Internet, doesn't mean you have to speak like a complete ****. Speak coherently, and people will trust and like you more (at least, in my experience). Plus, no one wants an ugly forum filled with common post error #3.

Look, everyone makes spelling errors now and again, we're only human, but can you at least try? The forum will thank you for it.(well, I will anyway) :)





I'm sorry, but I just had to say something. Anyone else feel the same way as I do, or am I the only one against unreadable posts?

[Skyei]

zap i comltyl nderstand ur problm see lol whn ppl type lik3 dis it luks relly dum n mmm lol rofl lmao omg why du ppl type lik dis anywy? lol lmoa rofl OMG.

[wraisin pie]

i call it lazy writing people want to type for less time i wasnt.

people put instead of for they put 4 and when people put u they mean you
what they put vp instead of viva pinata i admit i use that writing sometimes but not in every word only one per few post

[LiveSlappNutz]

I totally agree with you Zap. Some people might think it is funny, but it drives me nuts. I would also appreciate it if people would reread their posts before posting them.

~LSN~

[LiveSlappNutz]

i call it lazy writing people want to type for less time i wasnt.

people put instead of for they put 4 and when people put u they mean you
what they put vp instead of viva pinata i admit i use that writing sometimes but not in every word only one per few post

Perfect example. The first sentence hardly makes sense. Where is the comma, what does "people want to type for less time I wasn't" mean? And the rest of the post isn't much better.

~LSN~ (pulling hair out)

EDIT: Let me show you how your post should read.

I call it lazy writing because people want to type in less time. People put 4 instead of for, they put u instead of you and they put VP instead of Viva Pinata. I admit I use that kind of writing sometimes but not in every word, only one per few posts.

[Ikeblue]

Perfect example. The first sentence hardly makes sense. Where is the comma, what does "people want to type for less time I wasn't" mean? And the rest of the post isn't much better.

~LSN~ (pulling hair out)

I agree so much. I can't stand the crazy writing like this next sentence. Want 2 play l8er You see as there is no question mark or correct puncation I can't stand it. :mad:

[wraisin pie]

Perfect example. The first sentence hardly makes sense. Where is the comma, what does "people want to type for less time I wasn't" mean? And the rest of the post isn't much better.

~LSN~ (pulling hair out)


Oh,i'll try and do better next time then.

[PINATAcast]

everyone also has to understand times are changing, and iBonics is a very large problem with todays youth. I work @ a college in Florida, and 70% of our new arrivals each year have worse and worse English skills or there lack of.

I am not excusing typos, I am just explaining that it will get worse and probably will never get better.

I suggestion to people who just look like they are typing in a dark room. Get the newest version of firefox. It comes with a built in, real time, spell check.

Thank goodness for the ~~~~~~~~~~~~

on the flip side though, I myself have been chastised for correcting peoples' spelling and grammar and I will relay to you what was told to me.

PIF is no place to correct spelling or grammar. if you have an issue, PM them.

[Zap657]

PIF is no place to correct spelling or grammar. if you have an issue, PM them.

So you're saying everyone on PIF is to live in ignorance? Nice. :?

[Leighton Darko]

Oh man, for a moment I was worried "unreadable" was referring to small text... I was about to start running...
Anyway, no, you're far from alone, Zap.
I cannot stand chatspeak or "1337" speak or anything related to the two.
I'm a severe grammar Nazi; I just have a very stylized form of typing that doesn't show that...
I mean, yeah, I'll use "w/e" on occasion in IMs and I'll use acronyms and stuff, but I'm lazy.
I seriously want to gouge my eyes out whenever I see someone replacing "for" with "4" or "to/too" with "2."
It honestly disgusts me and makes me almost physically sick to the stomach.
But meh, whatever. People are lazy and won't change.
It's just a fact of life that we have to deal with people who can't master the English language when it's their native tongue.

[yetizai]

Include small text in that unreadable category. I know if I’m rushing I tend to miss the “I”s and I also transpose letters sometimes but that is a really mild dyslexic thing. Sorry :).

[LiveSlappNutz]

So you're saying everyone on PIF is to live in ignorance? Nice. :?

Zap, he wasn't stating his belief, he was stating what he was told.

~LSN~

[FeralKitty]

So you're saying everyone on PIF is to live in ignorance? Nice. :?

I'm saying that correcting spelling and grammar may start a flame-fest. We don't need member A criticizing member B's spelling in public.

A general post like this, though, that isn't directed to anyone in specific, is fine.

[PINATAcast]

It's just a fact of life that we have to deal with people who can't master the English language when it's their native tongue.

take into consideration that this is the internet and there are people that are on these forums from across the world.

please dont think that this is an American/English only board.

Most other countrys speak better English than us Americans anyway.

[Leighton Darko]

take into consideration that this is the internet and there are people that are on these forums from across the world.

please dont think that this is an American/English only board.

Most other countrys speak better English than us Americans anyway.
I'm well aware this is a worldwide board.
This is why I said 'when English is their native tongue'.
I wasn't trying to offend anyone from other countries, or anyone at all.
I guess my post still ended up coming off as rather inconsiderate, though, so I'm sorry.

[FeralKitty]

There's a fair number of posts on the boards that I can't understand at all. It's not because they use netspeak, or have spelling or grammar errors, but because I'm left to solve what the person was trying to say.

Writing well, so that others can comprehend (understand) what you mean, is important. It helps to carefully (slowly) read what you've written, before posting, to check that the sentences make sense, and convey what you're trying to say or ask.

If I get to a post where I have no clue what the poster was trying to say, I usually don't bother to stop and ask them to explain, so that I can understand them. It's far better to write well, so that people can understand you, than to write poorly, and be overlooked due to incomprehension.

[Chitinous]

I must admit to finding 1337 speak fascinating, used properly (over IRC or the like) it could become the true Esperanto; with the extensively developed rules and boundaries of a much older language. I just wish that I could understand it! :p

Seriously, I have no problem with the way that anyone types on this site (it would be pretty hypocritical of me if I did) but would point out that netspeak is not the grammar-free refuge that many believe it to be, traditional grammarians will learn its rules sooner or later and the disapproving looks (and posts) will surely follow.

[DragonacheKing99]

I suggestion to people who just look like they are typing in a dark room. Get the newest version of firefox. It comes with a built in, real time, spell check.

Thank goodness for the ~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thats what I use. The spell-check is very helpful and I barely ever spell anything wrong anymore (but when I'm writing with a pencil/pen I don't make spelling erros at all) :D (That is also why I have a lot more spelling errors on XBOX.com where the spell check doesn't work). But then I still have to reread and preview what I write (but I like to use ()'s and seem to run on a bit). I also use the occasional abbreviation but not that much...

BTW I agree with what FK said, sometimes I just don't understand what the person is saying.

[Blade]

Remember when I used bad grammar? It was horrible! I came on the old forum with bad grammar, because I got it from another forum that didn't use proper grammer, and also from AIM. I'm glad i'm getting better

[Ryan44]

[The following applies to all types of writing, PIF members' posts included.]

There's a fair number of posts on the boards that I can't understand at all. It's not because they use netspeak, or have spelling or grammar errors, but because I'm left to solve what the person was trying to say.

Writing well, so that others can comprehend (understand) what you mean, is important. It helps to carefully (slowly) read what you've written, before posting, to check that the sentences make sense, and convey what you're trying to say or ask.

If I get to a post where I have no clue what the poster was trying to say, I usually don't bother to stop and ask them to explain, so that I can understand them. It's far better to write well, so that people can understand you, than to write poorly, and be overlooked due to incomprehension.

I can’t help but agree, FeralKitty, with your insistence on clarity.

As economist Thomas Sowell once wrote (http://www.tsowell.com/About_Writing.html), some writers seem to think that ''plain English is beneath their dignity,'' that it’s up to the reader to try to figure out what a writer could possibly be saying. Some writing is difficult to read since the ideas written about are difficult, while other writing is tough to read simply because the style and words used are hard to interpret.

If academics like Dr.Sowell can write plain language introductions to their subjects (in this case economics (http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465002609/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6195801-3484717?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187229812&sr=1-1)) then it’s possible to convey any idea or ideas, no matter how complex, in a simple style sans any obscurity. Given that one’s readers will have a hard time as it is trying to understand one’s ideas, and given that one of the purposes of writing is so that people can read it, adding an extra obstacle, density, to one’s writing is unnecessary and perhaps elitist in its contempt for clarity.

In other words, clarity should be the goal: writers should not forget their responsibility to make sure their writing is readable. After all, if one doesn’t write so that others can read the finished product, then for what purpose does one write? If the subject is complex, so be it, readers can deal with it, but writers shouldn’t make the reader’s burden heavier by pilling on unnecessary gobbledygook.

P.S. John Leo, former columnist for U.S. News & World Report, recently wrote an outstanding essay (http://www.johnleo.com/2006/10/23/on-good-writing/) on good writing. Here’s a preview,

The words of bureaucrats may twist tongues, but language on today’s college campus can truly twist minds. Many prominent people, particularly academics, have invented new ways to torture the English language. My friend Denis Dutton, a philosophy professor who runs the Arts & Letters daily site on the Internet, launched a bad-writing contest to honor these masters of gobbledygook.

Judith Butler, a well-known professor at the University of California–Berkeley was the grand prize winner for this impenetrable sentence.” The move from a structuralist account . . . marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony, etc., etc.” The sentence rattled on that way for 94 words. Another well-known professor, Martha Nussbaum, said Butler’s prose "bullies the reader into granting that, since one cannot figure out what is going on, there must be something significant going on." Other professors defended Butler on the grounds that English specialists, like technical analysts, are entitled to use private language that non-specialists can’t understand. Think about that: The professors were taking pride in prose readers can’t understand.

Alas Sokal, a professor at NYU, perpetrated a wonderful hoax at the expense of a postmodern magazine, submitting a nearly impenetrable article arguing that gravity is a social construct. Social Text magazine printed it as a serious piece, so Sokal had to explain to the editors, if you think gravity isn’t real, I invite you to walk out my window and test the theory; I live on the 21st floor.

Two things come to mind: (1) academics seem to think that just by being specialists they're entitled to write unintelligibly and (2) in some circles people seem to think that if someone writes in a difficult style, he/she must be saying something substantial!

The lesson: Don’t be impressed by someone just because they write or speak in a manner that‘s hard to understand; underneath those big words and complex sentences may be nothing of substance.

[schedar]

While there are many languages spoken on the INTARWEBZ, including l337, they serve one purpose: Make typing sentences as easy and time efficient as possible. And in doing that, they ruin forums and chatrooms.

How many have you have walked into a chatroom and read:

"lolz hai. Wat ur name??//111"

Now I am no dictionary, but I believe that said

"Haha Hello, what might your name be?"

l337 speak is used to 'impress' others around the person using it. The language is written by replacing letters with numbers/symbols that look like that letter.

Proper grammar: Hello
1337: |-|3ll0

Now it may just be a pet peeve of mine, but I really do not like seeing things like this on any forum:

"hi kan u giv me ccs plx?"

That just bothers me. I think that how your post looks takes priority over how long it took you to type it.

00A

[Chitinous]

I think that how your post looks takes priority over how long it took you to type it.

The thing is, there is no inherent reward for those who double-check their submissions to forums such as this, quite the opposite in fact; with many threads involving a 'first come, first served' mechanic and a board-wide seniority system that is measured through the user's post count to date.

Anyway, even if there were it would be inherently unfair; where do you set the bar when your board-mates may be of any age or nationality? Vive' le Difference, I say!

[Moralic Dolt]

I guess the purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. But most people who are lazy and cant spell for there dear life, don't realize this, and babble like a simp.

[Ryan44]

The thing is, there is no inherent reward for those who double-check their submissions to forums such as this, quite the opposite in fact; with many threads involving a 'first come, first served' mechanic and a board-wide seniority system that is measured through the user's post count to date.

Anyway, even if there were it would be inherently unfair; where do you set the bar when your board-mates may be of any age or nationality? Vive' le Difference, I say!

I think there would be an inherent reward if a member reviews their entry before posting: the satisfaction that comes from knowing that other people actually understood what you wrote.

In addition, it is not hard at all to set a bar, unofficially, for English usage on PIF. First, most PIF members hail from the English-speaking world, made up of the U.S., the U.K., Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. It is hard to imagine the English used by the English-speaking peoples differing to the extent that dialogue is difficult. Second, regardless of a member's age, nationality or education level, I believe that we can all agree that clarity is to be encouraged, while forgiving minor grammatical and spelling errors. What matters is if a member makes his posts readable, not if his English is perfect.

Lastly, I believe that if a member misspells a word, or uses bad punctuation and grammar, others may point out his/her errors … but with charity and understanding! An arrogant attitude toward other’s mistakes should be discouraged. Members who enjoy correcting other's grammar and spelling should note that no one’s perfect and that even they at some point had to learn to write well. After all, writing is a lot like life itself: one learns from one’s mistakes.

I guess the purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. But most people who are lazy and cant spell for there dear life, don't realize this, and babble like a simp.

I disagree; while gobbledygook may cover-up a writer's lack of logic and his/her nonsensical ideas, it is a sign of bad writing, not the end to which all writing aspires -- unless, of course, one is an academic or an intellectual. The best writing combined with the brightest mind can produce works with important and powerful ideas, cogent reasoning, and great clarity of style. In short, good writing is closer to “the purpose of writing.”

Also, I’d advise more humility and some sympathy for other’s mistakes. After all, it’s a bit ridiculous to blast laziness and bad spelling while making two errors: (1) either misspelling “their” or confusing “their” with “there” and (2) using “cant,” which means either jargon or hypocrisy, instead of the correct word, “can’t.” I’m not gloating, of course, since I also suffer from the same flaws that characterize humanity -- I make mistakes too, in other things besides writing.

[Chitinous]

I think there would be an inherent reward if a member reviews their entry before posting: the satisfaction that comes from knowing that other people actually understood what you wrote.

I cannot say that I'm convinced but, if honesty and objectivity could be assured, this would make for a fascinating poll topic, don't you think?

In addition, it is not hard at all to set a bar, unofficially, for English usage on PIF. First, most PIF members hail from the English-speaking world, made up of the U.S., the U.K., Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. It is hard to imagine the English used by the English-speaking peoples differing to the extent that dialogue is difficult. Second, regardless of a member's age, nationality or education level, I believe that we can all agree that clarity is to be encouraged, while forgiving minor grammatical and spelling errors. What matters is if a member makes his posts readable, not if his English is perfect.

A fair point, well presented; which has me even more curious as to how many posters share the view that clarity begets general satisfaction, however gently the bar is raised.

Lastly, I believe that if a member misspells a word, or uses bad punctuation and grammar, others may point out his/her errors … but with charity and understanding! An arrogant attitude toward other’s mistakes should be discouraged. Members who enjoy correcting other's grammar and spelling should note that no one’s perfect and that even they at some point had to learn to write well. After all, writing is a lot like life itself: one learns from one’s mistakes.

Here I must disagree with you; all the charity and understanding in the world won't preclude hurt feeling; trust me on this, I've been there. If only one member left this forum because they felt dictated to, however accurate their belief or deliberately poor their language, then I believe we all suffer, even as we benefit.

Personally, I would love for you, and anyone else who wishes, to (gently) point out my mistakes so that I might improve my grammar. I just can't speak for everyone, nor should I have to.


I am glad to have another chance to debate (and hopefully not belabour) the odd point with you Ryan, please understand that my opinions are not meant to incite discord, they are as fallible and fragile as anyone else's.

[Ryan44]

I cannot say that I'm convinced but, if honesty and objectivity could be assured, this would make for a fascinating poll topic, don't you think?



A fair point, well presented; which has me even more curious as to how many posters share the view that clarity begets general satisfaction, however gently the bar is raised.



Here I must disagree with you; all the charity and understanding in the world won't preclude hurt feeling; trust me on this, I've been there. If only one member left this forum because they felt dictated to, however accurate their belief or deliberately poor their language, then I believe we all suffer, even as we benefit.

Personally, I would love for you, and anyone else who wishes, to (gently) point out my mistakes so that I might improve my grammar. I just can't speak for everyone, nor should I have to.


I am glad to have another chance to debate (and hopefully not belabour) the odd point with you Ryan, please understand that my opinions are not meant to incite discord, they are as fallible and fragile as anyone else's.



I’m happy to hear that you welcome an opportunity to debate, though I think it undermines your signature a bit. (I suggest a new signature: “Chitinous: unwittingly killing threads -- that don’t have Ryan44‘s input -- since 08-04-2007.”) The clarity issue is important to me since I encounter impenetrable academic and intellectual writings frequently and I do not think that these highbrow settings are free from the obligation to be clear.

I’m also glad to hear that you think your opinions as fallible and delicate as that of others. Only a person with a severe case of hubris would think their thoughts were on some sort of pedestal, beyond the reach of mortal men.

In addition, regarding the possible poll topic (do PIF members value clarity?), I think both objectivity and honesty would be impossible to achieve in this type of venue -- a public forum. Even without scientific validity, the topic can still be viable, so feel free to PM Spartan, he’s in charge of the poll forum.

* * *

People’s Feelings or Standards? A Time for Choosing

I have to disagree with your disagreeing with me about correcting grammar mistakes. I understand where you’re coming from, but I think your premise, “If only one member left this forum because they felt dictated to, however accurate their belief or deliberately poor their language, then I believe we all suffer, even as we benefit,” leads to absurd conclusions:

[The first two arguments are slippery slopes (http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Slippery%20Slope). The second shows that linguistic anarchy and clarity are incompatible.]

Linguistic Anarchy

First, your opinion would lead to linguistic anarchy on PIF. If pointing out a member’s grammar errors may hurt his feelings and he may therefore leave, then doesn’t it follow that we shouldn’t point out the errors in the first place? After all, as you said, if even one member leaves because his feelings are hurt, then we’d be the worse for it, i.e., the costs would outweigh the benefits. It then follows that no grammar or spelling rules could be set and enforced on PIF, either officially or unofficially, either gently or harshly, because having them (let alone enforcing them) would mean that some members would run afoul of them, and get their feelings hurt in the process of having their mistakes pointed out. We could still have grammar rules even if we don’t enforce them, but isn’t it absurd to have rules that are nothing more than suggestions , just as it is to have laws in society that aren’t enforced and just suggestions to not steal or murder? A possible alternative could be to have no grammar rules at all. Perhaps an “everything is permitted” tone could prevail, where every member is free to write the English language as he pleases (as long as he keeps it family-friendly), with no one to bother him about being wrong -- there’d be no “wrong” way to write or spell on PIF. Of course, this anarchic world would be no different from the world with powerless grammar rules; in the latter world, members are already free to write as they wish with impunity, regardless of the existence of “rules.”

Second, if your principle about correcting other’s grammar and spelling is taken universally (with Kant’s categorical imperative (http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/kantmeta.htm#H8), perhaps) it would lead to the conclusion that people’s grammar can’t be corrected, anywhere! If correcting a person’s grammar is bad because that person may get his feelings hurt, it follows that school teachers can’t point out and correct mistakes on their students’ papers. There’d be no point in teaching students how to write with proper grammar and spelling. Instead, the teachers will have to instruct their students that they should express themselves in writing in whatever way they like, since there is no wrong way to spell or use grammar. In business and in academia the same rule would apply: writers no longer need to edit their work since there is no longer any reason to do so -- with no right way to write, there are no mistakes to correct. In short, we’d find it harder to communicate with each person having his own idea of the right way to write than we would talking about math if it were up to personal opinion what any given equation equals. (With no right way to use math, who’s right, the man who says “2+2=4” or the man who counters with “2+2=5”?)

[The third argument is an argument from standards.]

Standards

Third, just because a person’s feelings might be hurt doesn’t mean that their grammar is immune from scrutiny. In a world with ordered grammar rules, mistakes are mistakes regardless of whatever a person feels. How can a person be taught how to write well without being shown the right and wrong way to write? For example, if the only way to spell “toys” is with an s, not a z, at the end, then shouldn’t someone who writes “toyz” be taught how to spell “toys,” even if in pointing out his mistake his feelings might be hurt? If we grant that one’s personal feelings override spelling rules then we might as well dispense with spelling rules -- what if a person feels he can spell words anyway he wants? However, in a world with objective spelling rules, we have no choice but to point out mistakes.

[This leads me to argument four: If we want to have (writing) standards, we must discourage excessive self-esteem.]

Self-esteem and Pride

Lastly, if we have gotten to the point where people cannot have their mistakes pointed out, even if it’s necessary in order for them to learn from these errors, then perhaps we have over-empathized “self-esteem,” that is, the idea that people’s feelings take precedence over actual accomplishment. In this view, what matters is that people feel good, not that they do well. Now, some self-esteem is good, but too much leads to a person having the false view that he can’t make mistakes, pride, in other words. In this elevated position, a person finds any erring on his part to be intolerable and their feelings would be hurt if these errors are shown, since being corrected would mean that they did something wrong. Given this, the answer would be to de-emphasize self-esteem and go back to standards; people should earn their self-esteem by being competent, by meeting such standards as good writing (including clarity), not by having self-esteem simply handed to them.

* * *

Conclusion

In a world with standards, writers realize that they aren’t perfect, but accept the need for the pointing out and correcting of their errors in order to progress toward an end: good writing. These people are humbler and understand their fallibility, which they share with all of humanity. In sum, a person, flaws and all, need not feel bad if they get something wrong on occasion, since they can always learn from their mistakes and get closer to the standard.

[Insane Wanderer]

I've had calculus problems that were easier to understand than the previous post (no offense) but I think this can all be sumed up like this:

Your writing (on PIF) doesn't need to be perfect, but at least sub-standerd would be appreciated by pretty much everyone.

[Ryan44]

I've had calculus problems that were easier to understand than the previous post (no offense) but I think this can all be sumed up like this:

Your writing (on PIF) doesn't need to be perfect, but at least sub-standerd would be appreciated by pretty much everyone.


The funny thing is that I find philosophy much easier than calculus ... you’d probably do better on those calculus problems than I would -- frankly, I’m overwhelmed by any math beyond the basic level. I guess we each have our strengths and weaknesses. My strengths are in history and philosophy and my weaknesses are in math and science.

By the way, thanks for cutting down my 1000-word argument for clarity down to a 21-word sentence. In fact, the conclusion drawn is close to another one of mine: What matters is if a (PIF) member makes his posts readable, not if his English is perfect.

[Insane Wanderer]

Sorry if I sounded like a jerk, I wasn't trying to. :oops:

[Ryan44]

Sorry if I sounded like a jerk, I wasn't trying to. :oops:

It's OK, I'm not offended.:) I thought your calculus analogy was very ironic...and funny! You're not a jerk.

And I’m not offended that you simplified my argument for clarity: I’m aware that some people just don’t have the time to read my long posts that seem to belong more in Commentary (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/) magazine than PIF. Therefore, I appreciate whenever my main points are broken down into a manageable size. :cool:

[Insane Wanderer]

Actually this is pretty funny, the reason I said calculus is because I hate math. But as for your long post, it was still very informative.

[Ryan44]

Actually this is pretty funny, the reason I said calculus is because I hate math. But as for your long post, it was still very informative.

That makes two of us; I'm not fond of math either. ;)

Thanks for the compliment. :)

[Chitinous]

I doubt that I will be able to invest in this rebuttal time enough to honour the cogency of your argument or the citations needed to clarify my position, itself the crux of mine. Forgive me? Sundays are surprisingly hectic in this household.

I’m happy to hear that you welcome an opportunity to debate, though I think it undermines your signature a bit. (I suggest a new signature: “Chitinous: unwittingly killing threads -- that don’t have Ryan44‘s input -- since 08-04-2007.”)

My signature came about despite my willingness to debate, if anything because of it; the majority of my early posts seemed to coincide with a dearth of interest in each topic they added to, despite offering anything but disputable opinion, until the resulting searches started to take on an embarrassing amount of symmetry.

The flood of eager new members seems to be alleviating the problem somewhat, so I amend my signature now in the spirit of irony and camaraderie.

I have to disagree with your disagreeing with me about correcting grammar mistakes. I understand where you’re coming from, but I think your premise, “If only one member left this forum because they felt dictated to, however accurate their belief or deliberately poor their language, then I believe we all suffer, even as we benefit,” leads to absurd conclusions:

Surely, on a board where the need to write clearly is a recognized problem, the way in which we may suffer (even as we benefit) should be opened for discussion before any potential conclusion, absurd or otherwise? After all, am I not as guilty as anyone when it comes to the use of plain English?

I believe that language usage may be split into two camps, modern and traditional, each evolving at a different rate but no less valid for it. Modern English is taught on the street as much as the classroom and reflects the diversity of its speakers, while traditional English honours their intertwining backgrounds and histories. It is the sad loss of this diversity that we can be said to suffer if we start down the equally slippery slope toward linguistic homogenisation.

I feel I must question the reasoning behind the approach of linguistic anarchy, it seems specious to assume that the freedom to ignore constructive guidelines when posting (so long as it's kept family-friendly) would somehow enable the author to ignore the subconscious call to emulate those whose language impresses or to band together, as many have done here, in disapproval of language that they find distasteful rater than direct confrontation.

If we dislike the fact that, should enough people find meaning in its misspelling, 'toyz' could join 'chavtastic' in the Oxford English Dictionary we may find solace in our own writing or by associating ourselves with one of the many organisations that promote traditional English. I just question the correctness of taking the board with us?

...frankly, I'm overwhelmed by any math beyond the basic level. So, mathematical philosophy must be like Kryptonite to you then? I will have to remember that! :p