Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [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!
Interestingly, though - it works - I read your para at almost normal
speed! Pity anyone not a native speaker, though.
>>> (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
>> 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".
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Women professionals do tend to over-compensate.
-- Dr. Elizabeth Dehaver, "Where No Man Has Gone Before",