Spelling nazis

[mstriumph]

I already told you once.

ohhhhhhhh no you didn't?

[mister.koz]

Well bugger me. I wrote that "WOUGH! WOUGH!" and some virtual bloody Spelling Nazi somewhere in the system decided that all caps is only for the ignorant (which I'm not obviously) and "corrected" it.

I must say this thread has gone on a lot longer than I thought.

(please note the careful capitalisation and the correct use of 's' involved)

[mstriumph]

Bugger me, I actually thought that "in" was a go. Relearned something today I have.

.... well actually - no
you can't 'relearn' something you admit to not having learned previously?

Yes, I should have been more paranoid. I trusted the grammar and spelling of the person who I was criticising for lacking grammar and spelling. How ironic!

... erm - actually the 'who' is superfluous?
... but on the whole i thought his criticism of you was, perhaps, a little harsh - in the interests of communication and establishing common ground, when replying to a quote i quite often repeat the poster's misspellings ... you could have been doing the same?

...but at least your Monty Python reference is flawed. It seems I win after all Mr. Winston.

yes ... sometimes winning is inevitable

I'll just be lazy and link the transcript - but you misrepresented the essence.

.... back to the mona lisa analogy

[Winston001]

I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!

[Winston001]

But i digress ...
insofar as my choosing NOT to capitalise the perpendicular pronoun is concerned, it is an expression of my view of my place within the universe in relation to my fellow man [or woman]

Nice, I like it. Nothing wrong with deliberately choosing an idiosyncrasy so long as you are consistent, which you are. Its careless spelling which makes a post incomprehensible that irritates a few of us.

As for Mikkel's postulation of Rules (of grammar) - I'm afraid I have to agree with him. These are not a Convention - if they were we'd have no comprehensible common language at all. Mind you, this is a losing battle if the spelling and grammar displayed in newspapers and on websites is any indication.

My work requires the reading, understanding and construction of letters and documents. Three paragraphs can take half an hour on a sensitive or complicated issue. Getting not only the spelling but the very best words to convey an unambiguous meaning takes concentration - but it's almost impossible to explain that to anyone not doing the same.

[Brooke]

I just found i got a negative rep because i criticized someone for correcting my spelling, it wasn't the criticized who repped me by the way.

I'll admit my message might have been snappy but i see pointless posts in threads all the time and allot of them are to do with spelling.

Its quite annoying when you are waiting for some help/advice from knowledgeable people who are in abundance here and you click the "new post to thread ..." link in your email and get a pointless comment.

Do people really are so much about spelling? Are people really that bored?

I don't know how people find the time!

Oh the crappy PC world we live in these days! I say bring the 60's back!

[Beemer]

Oh the crappy PC world we live in these days! I say bring the 60's back!

Yes PLEASE - back in those days nearly everyone could spell or at least they knew how to use a dictionary if they didn't! There was no text language or gangsta rap. By the way, there is no apostrophe in 60s either...

[MSTRS:Me]

By the way, there is no apostrophe in 60s either...

So ... you are trying to tell us that the apostrophe is a fairly new invention?

[Badjelly]

By the way, there is no apostrophe in 60s either...

So ... you are trying to tell us that the apostrophe is a fairly new invention?

No, he meant there is no apostrophe in "60s". ... Though there is one in "60's".

[MSTRS:Me]

You's correct.
(since I refer to the single 'you' ie Badjelly, not all the other yous that are here, I believe the contraction in the above to be correct)

[vifferman]

Actual, there is an apostrophe in "sixties" if you are talking about the 1960s, as in '60s.

[Badjelly]

You's correct.

I's grateful for your support.

[MSTRS:Me]

Actual, there is an apostrophe in "sixties" if you are talking about the 1960s, as in '60s.

True, dat.
To be correct in the apostrophe use when talking decades, the below should help...
1. The 60s were a time of peace, love and mungg beans. (refers to a number of years greater than 1)
2. The preceding sentence is about the 60's peace, love and mungg beans. (refers to something belonging to the said decade - although some BDOTGNZA members will have us believe that non-human items cannot be said to have the ability to be possessive)
3. 60's the year the decade started. (contraction of '60 is')

[Badjelly]

The 60s were a time of peace, love and mungg beans. (refers to a number of years greater than 1). The preceding sentence is about the peace, love and mungg beans of the 60's.

Kiwibiker members are a disputatious bunch. The preceding sentence is about the disputatiousness of Kiwibiker member's. I think not.

[MSTRS:Me]

Kiwibiker members are a disputatious bunch. The preceding sentence is about the disputatiousness of Kiwibiker member's. I think not.

Should that not read "Kiwibiker's members" ?