in reply to Grammarians: do we need a new group?

What would such a group do? I hope not editing posts for grammar problems; that's (when unsolicited) rude.

  • Comment on Re: Grammarians: do we need a new group?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Grammarians: do we need a new group?
by swampyankee (Parson) on Jan 09, 2007 at 03:50 UTC

    I'm not in the habit of editing other people's postings (even if I could, I wouldn't; my method would be to /msg them), nor do I tend to make (frequent) snarky comments about somebody's grammar, spelling, or punctuation.

    emc

    At that time [1909] the chief engineer was almost always the chief test pilot as well. That had the fortunate result of eliminating poor engineering early in aviation.

    —Igor Sikorsky, reported in AOPA Pilot magazine February 2003.

      So you think we should create a team of people who send /msgs whenever they see a grammar mistake? Sounds like a fantastic way to drive away visitors. It might even work for me. Was that your intent? ;)

      - tye        

        Personally, I appreciate the time and interest expended when someone corrects one of my posts for grammar or spelling (or logical weakness), especially if it is done in a gracious or lighthearted manner. I doubt that we need a formalized group for such things -- I think there already are a few monks out there who will /msg if they notice a blatant error which detracts from the effectiveness of a node.

        To both questions, the answer is "no".

        emc

        At that time [1909] the chief engineer was almost always the chief test pilot as well. That had the fortunate result of eliminating poor engineering early in aviation.

        —Igor Sikorsky, reported in AOPA Pilot magazine February 2003.