Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Typos in UseNet (Was: IE7)

__/ [Linønut] on Friday 03 February 2006 03:40 \__

> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>> In article <drtmd0$1nhg$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>  Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I know for a fact I leave a trail of mistakes behind me. Who cares as
>>> long as I get the point/s across. Less double/triple checking = more time
>>> to deliver additional points. Linønut is top poster in this newsgroup if
>>> I recall correctly.
>> (1) If your points aren't worthwhile enough for you to expend a little
>> effort to express them clearly, why should the reader waste time on them?
> Because spelling doesn't ... really ... matter ... in a newsgroup?

I used to look back at a few posts of mine and felt upset to reveal my typos.
Over time (and after roughly 5,000 posts) I ceased to care because all
changes were cosmetic. They were not even embellishment that involved making
the points clearer and easier to understand. When I write for a conference
or a journals it's another matter, but these are public forums, for God's

I see people that are afraid of participating in public forums or extend
their homepages because *gasp* they might contain typos and reflect badly on

>> (2) Good readers read by the word, not the letter.  Poor spelling slows
>> them down quite a bit.  What makes you so important that saving a few
>> seconds on your end is worth slowing down thousands of readers?  Even if
>> it only slows them down by a fraction of second, the total time lost is
>> way more than you save.
> Lookee here.  We have the John Stuart Mill of UseNet!

 __/ [Gordon] added on Friday 03 February 2006 09:58 \__

 > Not at all. there have been several lots of research done that prove
 > that spelling is immaterial - if the word LOOKS like the one it was
 > meant to be, then it will be read as the one it was meant to be.

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht
oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, olny taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at
the rghit pcleas. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it
wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by ilstef,
but the wrod as a wlohe.

My spellchecker has just busted!

>> (3) With decent tools, good spelling and grammar should not really take
>> any more time on your part, so the whole "more time to deliver
>> additional points" argument is bogus.
> hoo kares abowt speling?  you doan buss peepuh's chops bout diktion, dew
> yew?
> wot a tempist inna teepot.

I quite like to see other people's typos because to err is human. At least
this helps me realise that I speak to people like myself, whose obsession
with grammatical perfection is inexistent. Information is stored in our
brain as concepts, so typos will not affect your knowledge, not even your
visual recognition of words. When it comes down to writing something
*polished*, all you need is that knowledge that you have accumulated
throughout life.

Einstein once said "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest (typos analogy)
are details".


Roy S. Schestowitz      |    "Pentiums melt in your PC, not in your hand"
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
 11:15am  up 17 days  6:31,  11 users,  load average: 0.71, 0.61, 0.65
      http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index