Grammar Nazis - public service or public enemy?

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

DDD vs Gregory

Greg66 wrote:

Think of it this way. You are browsing ebay for a bike. You see two adverts. One is grammatically correct, and contains no misspellings. The other looks like it was written with Scrabble tiles then shaken around a bit. It is littered with grammatical errors.

Both sellers appear to be selling the same type of bike, in apparently the same condition. The substance of what they have said is broadly the same.

Whose auction will you bid on?

The context, in this case the environment, is different. I agree that as the importance of the circumstance increases (i.e. an ebay advert) then the need for good grammar equally becomes more important.

However, I would argue that in an informal environment, where conversation can flitter from one point to another, the importance is centred around understanding the point itself with a reduced focus on how well the point is constructed.

When reading a post there is a moment where the point is understood and good grammar becomes secondary to the overall importance of the point being made.

Greg66 wrote:

I agree that is doesn't detract from the objective validity of the point, however, it will affect adversely how validity of the point is subjectively perceived by the audience. If you have two protagonists, with equally valid arguments, the one who expresses their point poorly will suffer for it.

That is very much dependant on the audience. Perception is a variable that cannot be measured so I think, dare I say, that your point is moot.

As I said above, in an informal conversation once the point is made and understood by the audience then you get diminishing returns on how well the sentence is constructed. This is different from a Court of Law, for example, where emotive responses are driven by the eloquence of the argument delivered and it is partly that skill that wins the case.

My issue is that I cannot escape the fact that this is just an Internet forum and while I agree with your view on good grammar, even though I struggle with it myself, there is limit to how useful it is going to be in an informal mostly jovial written context.

There is also the audience itself, you cannot determine the audiences reaction. Perhaps they will be sympathetic to the person with bad grammar, perhaps they will exert a measure of understanding or make extra effort to understand the point he/she is making. This has been seen in this thread where you have the 'grammar nazis' and the 'broken English resistance'. It's not always as clear cut as who writes the best wins.

So to claim that a post with good grammar and punctuation will outweigh a post with bad grammar, in an arena where grammar isn't necessarily important in the eyes of the audience, I think is a little off if not completely wrong.

You're right that the context of possibly parting with money is different to that of a forum. The ebay example is at one end of a spectrum.

It is, nonetheless, illustrative of the point. The thrust of your argument is (in essence) to concede that the quality of a person's grammar has an effect; but in the context of a forum the weight is de minimis.

Now that's where we part company. Even within a forum there are varying contexts. In a thread which is more of less banter, the quality of grammar may be close to de minimis. But even within such a thread, you might want to drop a clever or funny joke. Get the grammar right, and it works. Make your reader have to re-read it, and, well, not many jokes are funny when you have to solve them first.

At the other end of the forum context there are relatively serious debates: eg how to improve the safety of cyclists alongside HGVs at junctions. In my view this is a sufficiently important matter to warrant getting your message across clearly.

I've come to the conclusion since posting this thread that I am, in fact, a bit of a closet Grammar Nazi. I don't relentlessly correct every last error I see. I do notice the errors though, and there is a part of me that quietly tuts when I see them.

Sewinman

There is a mildly repulsive whiff of self-congratulatory snobbery on this thread. You know who you are...

greg66_tri_v2.0

Sewinman wrote:

There is a mildly repulsive whiff of self-congratulatory snobbery on this thread. You know who you are...

But how does one distinguish that from the whiff of inverted self-congratulatory snobbery from the "my grammar's poor, and I don't care, but the fact that you care makes you the L-O-S-E-R!!!"?

(Not that I am saying that that is overpowering in this thread).

dhope

Greg66 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

There is a mildly repulsive whiff of self-congratulatory snobbery on this thread. You know who you are...

But how does one distinguish that from the whiff of inverted self-congratulatory snobbery from the "my grammar's poor, and I don't care, but the fact that you care makes you the L-O-O-S-E-R!!!"?

(Not that I am saying that that is overpowering in this thread).

FTFY

sketchley

Greg66 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

If you did this in mathematics it would be like saying 3 time 4 is 12 unless you work for HSBC then it's 11.

Have you not seen the 48÷2(9+3) puzzle floating round t'internet?

Without looking on t-internet = 288

What's difficult about that follows a very basic rule BIDMAS or Brackets, Indices, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction.

So you do the 9+3 first then the 48/2 which leaves you with 24x12 = 288.

The alternative is 2.

The issue (which excites quite a lot of debate) is whether 2(9+3) is a single expression, that is to be resolved prior to the division.

So, 1÷3(2): is it a 1/6, or a very odd way of writing 2/3?

I'm in the 2 camp. I've done this to death elsewhere, so I'm not playing this time. But there is fun to had...

I know you don't want to play but 2 is the wrong answer. To get 2 you the equation would need to be written as 48÷(2(9+3)) therefore making it clear that 2(9+3) or 2 x 12 = 24 must be calculated first, thereby giving 48/24 which is indeed 2.

Without the extra brackets you must assume it is not calculated first. Think of the original equation written as 48÷2x(9+3), the 9+3 in bracket must come first leaving 48÷2x12 which has to be 288. Also consider what happen with no brackets this is 48÷2x9+3 which gives 24x9+3 or 216 + 3 or 219.

That being said no self respecting mathematician would ever of write the original equation that way in the first place. I can't display it in here but the 48 would have line under it with the 2 directly below with the (9+3) off to right to avoid any doubt.

Sewinman

Greg66 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

There is a mildly repulsive whiff of self-congratulatory snobbery on this thread. You know who you are...

But how does one distinguish that from the whiff of inverted self-congratulatory snobbery from the "my grammar's poor, and I don't care, but the fact that you care makes you the L-O-S-E-R!!!"?

(Not that I am saying that that is overpowering in this thread).

I don't smell that. Most people make a pretty good effort on here. Not everyone can be perfect, and if they were you would not get to feel super clever every now and again!

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

Now that's where we part company. Even within a forum there are varying contexts. In a thread which is more of less banter, the quality of grammar may be close to de minimis. But even within such a thread, you might want to drop a clever or funny joke. Get the grammar right, and it works. Make your reader have to re-read it, and, well, not many jokes are funny when you have to solve them first.

At the other end of the forum context there are relatively serious debates: eg how to improve the safety of cyclists alongside HGVs at junctions. In my view this is a sufficiently important matter to warrant getting your message across clearly.

'Our circular dance is becoming and endless waltz. It is like my turning cranks on an empty road.'

On the point of serious discussion in a forum I still think that if the point is understood then the accuracy of the text is secondary.

Same with jokes and most form of text within an informal media construct, its about interpretation and understanding first. My posts have been littered with mistakes it hasn't stopped you from understanding them or taking them seriously it hasn't reduced their validity.

clarkey cat

But DDD, unless you use immaculate grammar, how can you be sure that your point has been understood completely? You may think it has because you have applied your own subjective analysis of its clarity, but you may be wrong; the only way you can be truly satisfied that you have done all you can in having your message understood is to use flawless spelling and grammar and then if the audience doesn't understand then it is their fault for being stupid.

MrChuck

DonDaddyD wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

Personally I don't think people making lots of grammatical errors are necessarily stupid, I just think they can't be bothered. And even on an informal forum like this, that does colour my impression of that person and what they have to say.

It must be lonely up there.

What, up here where people form opinions of others based on what they know about them? Not really.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Sketchley wrote:

I know you don't want to play but 2 is the wrong answer. To get 2 you the equation would need to be written as 48÷(2(9+3)) therefore making it clear that 2(9+3) or 2 x 12 = 24 must be calculated first, thereby giving 48/24 which is indeed 2.

Without the extra brackets you must assume it is not calculated first. Think of the original equation written as 48÷2x(9+3), the 9+3 in bracket must come first leaving 48÷2x12 which has to be 288. Also consider what happen with no brackets this is 48÷2x9+3 which gives 24x9+3 or 216 + 3 or 219.

That being said no self respecting mathematician would ever of write the original equation that way in the first place. I can't display it in here but the 48 would have line under it with the 2 directly below with the (9+3) off to right to avoid any doubt.

And they're off...

2 is the right answer.

You can't rewrite the expression (as you have in the second two bits of emboldening) to "prove" your solution, whilst at the same time poo-pooing a rewrite that gets to 2 (the first emboldening).

I agree completely that

no self respecting mathematician would ever of write the original equation that way in the first place

The problem, however, is to determine the solution given that it has been written that way.

You have already embarked on the process that leads to 2: that is, you've started playing around with the expression to try to determine what it really means.

There is an ambiguity in it, which is whether (9+3) was intended to be part of the denominator or the numerator. My view that if someone wanted to express x over y, they would write x/y. They would not write 1/yx, or 1/y(x) or 1/y.x.

So, taking as my starting point the premise that if the author had really intended 48 to be multiplied by 12 before any division operation, he would have written 48*(9+3)/2, I conclude that that cannot have been his intent.

48÷2x12

Would you really solve that as 288, or would you query WTF the question was? I find it hard to credit that as a mathmo you would (for example) resolve 1÷3x2 as 2/3. It's obviously 1/6, for the reasons (elegance of expression) that I've outlined.

Anyway, I now promise that I really, really, really will leave this alone.

dhope

Sketchley wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

If you did this in mathematics it would be like saying 3 time 4 is 12 unless you work for HSBC then it's 11.

Have you not seen the 48÷2(9+3) puzzle floating round t'internet?

Without looking on t-internet = 288

What's difficult about that follows a very basic rule BIDMAS or Brackets, Indices, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction.

So you do the 9+3 first then the 48/2 which leaves you with 24x12 = 288.

The alternative is 2.

The issue (which excites quite a lot of debate) is whether 2(9+3) is a single expression, that is to be resolved prior to the division.

So, 1÷3(2): is it a 1/6, or a very odd way of writing 2/3?

I'm in the 2 camp. I've done this to death elsewhere, so I'm not playing this time. But there is fun to had...

I know you don't want to play but 2 is the wrong answer. To get 2 you the equation would need to be written as 48÷(2(9+3)) therefore making it clear that 2(9+3) or 2 x 12 = 24 must be calculated first, thereby giving 48/24 which is indeed 2.

Without the extra brackets you must assume it is not calculated first. Think of the original equation written as 48÷2x(9+3), the 9+3 in bracket must come first leaving 48÷2x12 which has to be 288. Also consider what happen with no brackets this is 48÷2x9+3 which gives 24x9+3 or 216 + 3 or 219.

That being said no self respecting mathematician would ever of write the original equation that way in the first place. I can't display it in here but the 48 would have line under it with the 2 directly below with the (9+3) off to right to avoid any doubt.

This. But not quite for the same reason.
It's not the order the operators are evaluated that's important here, it's the associativity.

48/2(9+3)
= 48/2(12)
= 48/2*12

Divide isn't higher precedence than multiply though (they're the same), but both are left associative.
so 48/2*12 = (48/2)*12 = 288

greg66_tri_v2.0

Back in the real world, I would like to point out that the poll results have proved that Grammar Nazis are, in fact, Sex Gods for Adolescents.

As if it were ever in doubt...

DonDaddyD

MrChuck,

Do you form an opinion of people based on how good there grammar is. There isn't enough oxygen to sustain two people up there, I reckon.

I mean based on the serious discussions but grammar on a forum, really?

What do you do:

'Used one 'o' instead of two for the word 'too'. Therefore must be a chav?'

Seems a tad judgemental to me.

dhope

Greg66 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

I know you don't want to play but 2 is the wrong answer. To get 2 you the equation would need to be written as 48÷(2(9+3)) therefore making it clear that 2(9+3) or 2 x 12 = 24 must be calculated first, thereby giving 48/24 which is indeed 2.

Without the extra brackets you must assume it is not calculated first. Think of the original equation written as 48÷2x(9+3), the 9+3 in bracket must come first leaving 48÷2x12 which has to be 288. Also consider what happen with no brackets this is 48÷2x9+3 which gives 24x9+3 or 216 + 3 or 219.

That being said no self respecting mathematician would ever of write the original equation that way in the first place. I can't display it in here but the 48 would have line under it with the 2 directly below with the (9+3) off to right to avoid any doubt.

And they're off...

2 is the right answer.

You can't rewrite the expression (as you have in the second two bits of emboldening) to "prove" your solution, whilst at the same time poo-pooing a rewrite that gets to 2 (the first emboldening).

I agree completely that

no self respecting mathematician would ever of write the original equation that way in the first place

The problem, however, is to determine the solution given that it has been written that way.

You have already embarked on the process that leads to 2: that is, you've started playing around with the expression to try to determine what it really means.

There is an ambiguity in it, which is whether (9+3) was intended to be part of the denominator or the numerator. My view that if someone wanted to express x over y, they would write x/y. They would not write 1/yx, or 1/y(x) or 1/y.x.

So, taking as my starting point the premise that if the author had really intended 48 to be multiplied by 12 before any division operation, he would have written 48*(9+3)/2, I conclude that that cannot have been his intent.

48÷2x12

Would you really solve that as 288, or would you query WTF the question was? I find it hard to credit that as a mathmo you would (for example) resolve 1÷3x2 as 2/3. It's obviously 1/6, for the reasons (elegance of expression) that I've outlined.

Anyway, I now promise that I really, really, really will leave this alone.

No no no. We're talking Maths now, not your airy fairy English language b0ll0cks. There is one correct interpretation that results in an answer of 288.
Whether the author intended to write it one way or another is neither here nor there. Don't bring us mathematicians down to your level

SimonAH

It's 2.

Agent57

In terms of "BODMAS", I was taught that division and multiplication have equal priority, as do addition and subtraction; so it's BO(DM)(AS). In the absence of parentheses, calculations should then be evaluated left to right.

So:

48÷2(9+3)
=
48÷2(12)
=
48 ÷ 2 * 12
=
24 * 12
=
288

Put "48÷2(9+3)" into Google and it'll also say 288.

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

Back in the real world, I would like to point out that the poll results have proved that Grammar Nazis are, in fact, Sex Gods for Adolescents.

As if it were ever in doubt...

Doesn't it worry you that the majority of posters, and therefore the majority of voters, are male.

Seriously, LiT, our only (Tory/Grammar Nazi, Sarah Palin esque) female, is the only one likely to vote sex god.

CiB

DonDaddyD wrote:

Seriously, LiT, our only (Tory/Grammar Nazi, Sarah Palin esque) female, is the only one likely to vote sex god.

Yeah maybe so but based one her one single contribution to this whole thread I'm fighting an urge to chuck her in the back of the Land Rover and scarper with her. Good job I'm a long way away.

Ooops. Forgot the

Jay dubbleU

Agent57 wrote:

In terms of "BODMAS", I was taught that division and multiplication have equal priority, as do addition and subtraction; so it's BO(DM)(AS). In the absence of parentheses, calculations should then be evaluated left to right.

So:

48÷2(9+3)
=
48÷2(12)
=
48 ÷ 2 * 12
=
24 * 12
=
288

Put "48÷2(9+3)" into Google and it'll also say 288.

Surely for the answer to be 2 the equation would have to be

48/2 * 9 * 3 - given that multiply and divide have equal precidence then the presence of the brackets indicates that 9 * 3 should be given priority :?:

greg66_tri_v2.0

dhope wrote:

No no no. We're talking Maths now, not your airy fairy English language b0ll0cks. There is one correct interpretation that results in an answer of 288.
Whether the author intended to write it one way or another is neither here nor there. Don't bring us mathematicians down to your level

Hehe. I was waiting for someone to stick their chin out on that one.

1 in Maths and Further Maths S level, early 80s, when A and S levels were proper hard, and set by real examination boards. :P

I chose to read law rather than maths.

So, would you write 2/3 as 1/3.2?

Agent57 wrote:

Put "48÷2x12" into Google and it'll also say 288

That is nothing more than a reflection of how Google has been programmed. Hunt around, and you will find images of two Texas Instruments side by side, each displaying a different answer.

The internet doesn't always have the answer...

HamishD

It's 288. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48 ... x%3D+9%2B3

And if Wolfram is wrong then I'll eat my hat . . .

davmaggs

Greg66 wrote:

Back in the real world, I would like to point out that the poll results have proved that Grammar Nazis are, in fact, Sex Gods for Adolescents.

As if it were ever in doubt...

-1.

It just highlights that you didn't add the options "they point out grammatical errors when they can't argue their case" or perhaps "they interrupt a debate mid flow with trivia because they need/crave attention"

I demand that this injustice is corrected

sketchley

lost_in_thought wrote:

I'm in the 'it always matters, and frankly isn't difficult, so just make an effort' camp. The more you make an effort the more it'll come naturally.

For those who are waving the 'dyslexia' flag, yes, it makes learning grammar more tricky, but far from impossible. Don't hide behind it.

I'm not and never have, it's something I've learnt to deal with. But can you not accept that I can read something I've written and simply not see the mistakes. It's not that I don't know it's a mistake, I actually see a different word from the one that is on the screen? Dyslexia is know as "word blindness" for a reason. No amount of effort does can fix this, you have to approach that another way. If you do not and have not experience this I can see why it appears to be a lack of effort but please accept that it is not.

Jay dubbleU

Greg66 wrote:

dhope wrote:

No no no. We're talking Maths now, not your airy fairy English language b0ll0cks. There is one correct interpretation that results in an answer of 288.
Whether the author intended to write it one way or another is neither here nor there. Don't bring us mathematicians down to your level

Hehe. I was waiting for someone to stick their chin out on that one.

1 in Maths and Further Maths S level, early 80s, when A and S levels were proper hard, and set by real examination boards. :P

I chose to read law rather than maths.

So, would you write 2/3 as 1/3.2?

Agent57 wrote:

Put "48÷2x12" into Google and it'll also say 288

That is nothing more than a reflection of how Google has been programmed. Hunt around, and you will find images of two Texas Instruments side by side, each displaying a different answer.

The internet doesn't always have the answer...

Before you start going into how hard maths was in 'the old days' I did 'A' level Theoretical Mathematics in 1969 when it was set by mathematicians and you had to show (and get marks for) your working and calculators were not allowed

sketchley

dhope wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

If you did this in mathematics it would be like saying 3 time 4 is 12 unless you work for HSBC then it's 11.

Have you not seen the 48÷2(9+3) puzzle floating round t'internet?

Without looking on t-internet = 288

What's difficult about that follows a very basic rule BIDMAS or Brackets, Indices, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction.

So you do the 9+3 first then the 48/2 which leaves you with 24x12 = 288.

The alternative is 2.

The issue (which excites quite a lot of debate) is whether 2(9+3) is a single expression, that is to be resolved prior to the division.

So, 1÷3(2): is it a 1/6, or a very odd way of writing 2/3?

I'm in the 2 camp. I've done this to death elsewhere, so I'm not playing this time. But there is fun to had...

I know you don't want to play but 2 is the wrong answer. To get 2 you the equation would need to be written as 48÷(2(9+3)) therefore making it clear that 2(9+3) or 2 x 12 = 24 must be calculated first, thereby giving 48/24 which is indeed 2.

Without the extra brackets you must assume it is not calculated first. Think of the original equation written as 48÷2x(9+3), the 9+3 in bracket must come first leaving 48÷2x12 which has to be 288. Also consider what happen with no brackets this is 48÷2x9+3 which gives 24x9+3 or 216 + 3 or 219.

That being said no self respecting mathematician would ever of write the original equation that way in the first place. I can't display it in here but the 48 would have line under it with the 2 directly below with the (9+3) off to right to avoid any doubt.

This. But not quite for the same reason.
It's not the order the operators are evaluated that's important here, it's the associativity.

48/2(9+3)
= 48/2(12)
= 48/2*12

Divide isn't higher precedence than multiply though (they're the same), but both are left associative.
so 48/2*12 = (48/2)*12 = 288

You sir are correct, Divide and Multiple have same precedence so you should simply do each calculation in order from the left.

dhope

Greg66 wrote:

dhope wrote:

No no no. We're talking Maths now, not your airy fairy English language b0ll0cks. There is one correct interpretation that results in an answer of 288.
Whether the author intended to write it one way or another is neither here nor there. Don't bring us mathematicians down to your level

Hehe. I was waiting for someone to stick their chin out on that one.

1 in Maths and Further Maths S level, early 80s, when A and S levels were proper hard, and set by real examination boards. :P

I chose to read law rather than maths.

So, would you write 2/3 as 1/3.2?

Agent57 wrote:

Put "48÷2x12" into Google and it'll also say 288

That is nothing more than a reflection of how Google has been programmed. Hunt around, and you will find images of two Texas Instruments side by side, each displaying a different answer.

The internet doesn't always have the answer...

You're probably about as qualified as me then. Started maths at uni but did no work, went back a few years later and did CompSci which had a decent mix of maths modules (no fluid dynamics etc but certainly a chunk of logic and discrete maths)

I'd not write 2/3 as 1/3.2 because I'd need to look at it for a moment to figure out what it was. If I did write it as 1/3.2 though then it would still be 2/3 rather than 1/6. In this case then the common sense interpretation isn't necessarily correct. That's why we have operator precedence and associativity, so that the answer cannot be ambiguous.

Agent57

Greg66 wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

Put "48÷2x12" into Google and it'll also say 288

That is nothing more than a reflection of how Google has been programmed.

Yes, but Google is programmed by clever people who understand how to do maths.

Jay dubbleU

Sketchley wrote:

dhope wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

If you did this in mathematics it would be like saying 3 time 4 is 12 unless you work for HSBC then it's 11.

Have you not seen the 48÷2(9+3) puzzle floating round t'internet?

Without looking on t-internet = 288

What's difficult about that follows a very basic rule BIDMAS or Brackets, Indices, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction.

So you do the 9+3 first then the 48/2 which leaves you with 24x12 = 288.

The alternative is 2.

The issue (which excites quite a lot of debate) is whether 2(9+3) is a single expression, that is to be resolved prior to the division.

So, 1÷3(2): is it a 1/6, or a very odd way of writing 2/3?

I'm in the 2 camp. I've done this to death elsewhere, so I'm not playing this time. But there is fun to had...

I know you don't want to play but 2 is the wrong answer. To get 2 you the equation would need to be written as 48÷(2(9+3)) therefore making it clear that 2(9+3) or 2 x 12 = 24 must be calculated first, thereby giving 48/24 which is indeed 2.

Without the extra brackets you must assume it is not calculated first. Think of the original equation written as 48÷2x(9+3), the 9+3 in bracket must come first leaving 48÷2x12 which has to be 288. Also consider what happen with no brackets this is 48÷2x9+3 which gives 24x9+3 or 216 + 3 or 219.

That being said no self respecting mathematician would ever of write the original equation that way in the first place. I can't display it in here but the 48 would have line under it with the 2 directly below with the (9+3) off to right to avoid any doubt.

This. But not quite for the same reason.
It's not the order the operators are evaluated that's important here, it's the associativity.

48/2(9+3)
= 48/2(12)
= 48/2*12

Divide isn't higher precedence than multiply though (they're the same), but both are left associative.
so 48/2*12 = (48/2)*12 = 288

You sir are correct, Divide and Multiple have same precedence so you should simply do each calculation in order from the left.

+ infinity

greg66_tri_v2.0

davmaggs wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Back in the real world, I would like to point out that the poll results have proved that Grammar Nazis are, in fact, Sex Gods for Adolescents.

As if it were ever in doubt...

-1.

It just highlights that you didn't add the options "they point out grammatical errors when they can't argue their case" or perhaps "they interrupt a debate mid flow with trivia because they need/crave attention"

I demand that this injustice is corrected

I think the second option caters for that group...

RickyG

I'm not sure if this was noted earlier but I'm assuming it's a typo.

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I don't think a person with good grammar is automatically more intelligent than a person with poor grammar. Not overall intelligence, certainly not.

Nail on the head.

What I find difficult is that often as not, when a error is picked up by a grammar Nazi, the maker of the error revels in their error, like a pig rolling in sh!t. What's wrong with acknowledging the error, understanding it, and trying not to make it in the future?

WTF ARE PEOPLE PHOBIC ABOUT IMPROVING THEIR WRITTEN ENGLISH?

I'm afraid it is that attitude: "I'm bad at grammar and spelling, proud of it, and you're the tw@t for pointing it out, not me for being too lazy to do anything about it" that I find startling.


In related news, this thread is quite effective at drawing out the clots, and the clot-apologists...