I've noticed that many of the forum discussions that TA has tweeted lately have contained glaring grammatical and spelling errors. I find this disappointing and even personally embarrassing as it inevitably reflects not only on the original poster but on the forum as a whole and, by extension, the larger atheist community. I know written communication isn't everything, and it certainly isn't a high priority among the public generally, but we should try to meet a higher standard. Given the unlikelihood that individual posters will suddenly take more care when writing, I think the operators of the site's Twitter feed should consider not tweeting discussion titles with serious errors.
That's one poster's opinion, for whatever it's worth.
Amen,,,,,,,,,,, its all about the Topic!!!!! not about the gawd-damn punctuation and spelling!!!!
All that bad stuff creates a distraction from the point the person wants to make and can lead to confusion as well.
First off, i am not a native english speaker. But i do think that spelling and sentence structure is important, If you talked to someone previously unknown to you and they talked the way some people write, you would probably think they are slightly superficial and, let´s face it, slightly stupid.
If someone is talking in a foreign language it is of course different, Now, i don´t know when it was decided that one has to speak properly but can write however they want but i know i wasn´t informed.
It is hard for me to take someone seriously who cannot write a proper text in their own language, call me superficial.
You write very well in a second language. What excuse is there for an American or Englishman who can't write as well. Setting aside for a moment people with learning disabilities, why can't we write? Distracted by dope? Dropping out in order to have more time for video games?
It says something about someone who had an education dropped in their lap and they had something that appealed to them more.
I spell words the English way, despite my spellchecker trying to Americanise me (Americanize) - yes I am certain that there's a way to change that but I can't be arsed to look for it. Consequently, every time I see the word 'Colour' typed as 'Color" or one of the other myriad of parallel words Americanised, it gives me a micro-pause in the flow of reading. As a result, typos and similar mistakes fall in the same miniscule irritation category and can be ignored.
It's harder to gloss over the obvious switches, like reign for rein, or vane for vain, or all the 'their, there, they're' substitutions, but it's hardly cause over which to break out in a sweat.
I do take great delight in reading well worded and artistically gratifying prose, but it's a personal pleasure thing, and its absence is pretty much expected.
Communication is just that - a way of communicating. As long as I understand what you wrote, it's all good.
As far as the OP comment goes, however, why on earth should TA members hold themselves to a higher standard of written perfection than any other group? If a post hurts your eyes, don't bloody read it. How hard can this be?
The 'u' for 'you' text-speak I believe was in response to the initial restriction on cellphone texting characters, rather like tweets nowadays. Also, in the UK at least, many cellphone plans charged users by the number of characters in any given text. I find it jarring, the 'u' plays in my head as a kind of monkey grunt, but that's MY problem, and I will learn to get over it eventually.
I do know a pure American word...... drum-roll..... Discombobulate. Just look at that word! Makes it as clear as day that Americans can't be trusted to invent their own language!
RE: "Americans can't be trusted to invent their own language!" - Sez U! Clearly, U'r discombobulated!
verb [ trans. ] humorous
disconcert or confuse (someone) : this attitude totally discombobulated Bruce | [as adj. ] ( discombobulated) he is looking a little pained and discombobulated.
ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: probably based on discompose or discomfit .
I may never have forgiven you for that U'r - other than you gave away your fraudulent use of it by sticking an apostrophe between the two letters, thus defeating the entire abbreviate purpose - fantastic!.
I will admit to having spoken the sound Ur in my youth, but that was only whilst driving the porcelain bus (aka talking to god on the big white phone in the bathroom).
Just playing with your comment, Strega - but without the apostrophe, it might have been mispronounced, "er," hence, the necessity.
"whilst?" - are we regressing to Chaucer?
"Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open eye-
(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);"
Now THAT'S English!
But wait! Your English sounds more like my 'Merican, than it does Chaucer's - could it be you and I are BOTH speaking what her Royal Hiney calls "mistakes"? I shudder to think! (I don't always shudder, but it does help me think --)
What a load of old Codswallop. A newy but a goody :)
I prefer my Codswallop with just a touch of Tartar sauce --