Attn. Spelling Police
Discussion
Schmalex
Schmalex’s House
Hampshire
29th October 2008
Dear Sirs,
Having read Eddh's pointless post about the construction of some poor chap who is about to be made redundant's post, I am becoming increasingly exasperated with the spelling police on PH. Whilst I totally agree that txt spk is both difficult to read & can significantly reduce overall enjoyment of the site, it has to be said that the continuous pedantry of the spelling police is equally irritating.
PH is posted on for fun. People generally write things spontaneously & quickly. A direct consequence of this is that occasionally, spelling or grammar will naturally be imperfect. In my humble opinion, as long as a post is written well enough for people to understand what the OP is talking about, it really doesn't matter if a few commas or full stops are missing.
In future, spelling police, if you have nothing to add to a post other than pointing out that it was incorrectly spelt or the grammar wasn't quite correct, please desist from writing any "witty" replies, as it doesn't make you big, hard, funny or clever. In fact, 99% of people reading your pointless post will consider you to be a cock.
That's all.
Yours faithfully,
Schmalex.
EFP
Schmalex’s House
Hampshire
29th October 2008
Dear Sirs,
Having read Eddh's pointless post about the construction of some poor chap who is about to be made redundant's post, I am becoming increasingly exasperated with the spelling police on PH. Whilst I totally agree that txt spk is both difficult to read & can significantly reduce overall enjoyment of the site, it has to be said that the continuous pedantry of the spelling police is equally irritating.
PH is posted on for fun. People generally write things spontaneously & quickly. A direct consequence of this is that occasionally, spelling or grammar will naturally be imperfect. In my humble opinion, as long as a post is written well enough for people to understand what the OP is talking about, it really doesn't matter if a few commas or full stops are missing.
In future, spelling police, if you have nothing to add to a post other than pointing out that it was incorrectly spelt or the grammar wasn't quite correct, please desist from writing any "witty" replies, as it doesn't make you big, hard, funny or clever. In fact, 99% of people reading your pointless post will consider you to be a cock.
That's all.
Yours faithfully,
Schmalex.
EFP
Edited by schmalex on Wednesday 29th October 20:37
Simpo Two said:
Your spelling is fine - what's the problem?
Mind you, with 'the construction of some poor chap who is about to be made redundant's post' your sentence construction needs a trip to B&Q...
I must admit, it took me a while to get my head around that particular sentence & felt that was the best of a bad bunch of possible construction options!Mind you, with 'the construction of some poor chap who is about to be made redundant's post' your sentence construction needs a trip to B&Q...
Edited by schmalex on Wednesday 29th October 19:03
schmalex said:
Simpo Two said:
Your spelling is fine - what's the problem?
Mind you, with 'the construction of some poor chap who is about to be made redundant's post' your sentence construction needs a trip to B&Q...
I must admit, it took me a while to get my head around that particular sentence & felt that was the best of a bad bunch of possible construction options!Mind you, with 'the construction of some poor chap who is about to be made redundant's post' your sentence construction needs a trip to B&Q...
I also noticed that I missed a "." and a "," from the last two sentences.
Poor, poor quality. But I blame it solely on the spelling police, who were making me increasingly angry.
I fixed it for you.
No, no...no need to thank me
Oh, and...
A direct consequence of this is that occasionally, spelling or grammar will naturally be imperfect.
A comma before occasionally would be absolutely spiffing...
Toodle pip...
Edit..
You edited that, didn't you, you naughty boy...?
Edited by mybrainhurts on Wednesday 29th October 19:12
mybrainhurts said:
schmalex said:
Simpo Two said:
Your spelling is fine - what's the problem?
Mind you, with 'the construction of some poor chap who is about to be made redundant's post' your sentence construction needs a trip to B&Q...
I must admit, it took me a while to get my head around that particular sentence & felt that was the best of a bad bunch of possible construction options!Mind you, with 'the construction of some poor chap who is about to be made redundant's post' your sentence construction needs a trip to B&Q...
I also noticed that I missed a "." and a "," from the last two sentences.
Poor, poor quality. But I blame it solely on the spelling police, who were making me increasingly angry.
I fixed it for you.
No, no...no need to thank me
Oh, and...
A direct consequence of this is that occasionally, spelling or grammar will naturally be imperfect.
A comma before occasionally would be absolutely spiffing...
Toodle pip...
Edit..
You edited that, didn't you, you naughty boy...?
Edited by mybrainhurts on Wednesday 29th October 19:12
schmalex said:
Whilst I totally agree that txt spk is both difficult to read & can significantly reduce overall enjoyment of the site, it has to be said that the continuous pedantry of the spelling police is equally irritating.
You started that sentence in the first person, and continued in the third. audidoody said:
Except when citing a name, you should NEVER use an ampersand in place of ` and' in formal writing
We're the spelling police son & we haven’t had any dinner.
Whilst apologizing for starting a sentence with 'and' and recognizing that although we included the oft mislaid 'h' in 'hoops' it arguably should have been 'Hoops' as we were using it to describe a trademarked product.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff