[rane]

Originally Posted by Iceman

Following your wacko metaphores, that would be "if you can't type, don't come here" or "if you can't spell, get a thesarus". Or a spell checker. Or use www.merriam-webster.com. Anything, but don't post crappy posts.

My "wacko" metaphores only exists based on your first claim that ppl liking well-written posts simply needs to write well-written posts to be accepted in your book. So I have no problems with you calling them wacko, since it just shows your first claim was wacko too.

Originally Posted by Iceman

If you haven't published anything, you're not a writer. I've published many articles, but I still don't consider myself as a writer. And neither should anyone else if they haven't published anything.

I think you misunderstood me here. I meant that in the writers "spare time" (like on a messageboard, on emails etc.) where things arent getting published by the publisher, the writer aint forced to write perfectly english. Actually I could perfectly understand if the writer felt more free and didnt have to concentrate and focus on every tiny spelling- or grammar detail.

Originally Posted by Iceman

If you claim to be a writer, you should have a good understanding of the language. No editor will edit your text if you can't write. Would I have posted? Yes, but I wouldn't have pointed out the "profession". Now it demonstrated the point more clearly.

Ok, so we agree that nomatter if the poster was a writer or not, you would still have acted in the same way. Now that rules out the "writer" argument for now.

Originally Posted by Iceman

Dyslexics have no problem with the grammar. It's a condition where they can not "see" the words clearly. Grammar has nothing to do with it.

As far as I remember, there wasnt much wrong with the original posters spelling. There was maybe some linebreaks missing and some simple grammar errors. So this could in theory have been a dyslectic person (spending 20mins on spelling) writing the post, if it wasnt for the "writer" info in the profile. But that aside, you could have ended up being rude to a dyslectic person and that would be ok then.

I know, we're dealing with theories now but I kinda have a problem with the attitude that it must be ok to be rude to someone whose only "crime" is to write a quick post forgetting some linebreaks.

[Thomas Anderson]

Originally Posted by rane

I think you misunderstood me here. I meant that in the writers "spare time" (like on a messageboard, on emails etc.) where things arent getting published by the publisher, the writer aint forced to write perfectly english. Actually I could perfectly understand if the writer felt more free and didnt have to concentrate and focus on every tiny spelling- or grammar detail.

What Ice meant is that a person generally becomes a writer from a love and respect for language, and as such they would never degrade the language into txt speak, be it in their free time or not.

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by rane

My "wacko" metaphores only exists based on your first claim that ppl liking well-written posts simply needs to write well-written posts to be accepted in your book. So I have no problems with you calling them wacko, since it just shows your first claim was wacko too.

The only wacko thing is you putting spelling and cooking side by side. You can't do that. I played along, but since you can't seem to grasp the metaphore yourself, maybe you should try to write without them then.

As far as I remember, there wasnt much wrong with the original posters spelling. There was maybe some linebreaks missing and some simple grammar errors. So this could in theory have been a dyslectic person (spending 20mins on spelling) writing the post, if it wasnt for the "writer" info in the profile. But that aside, you could have ended up being rude to a dyslectic person and that would be ok then.

As far as I remember you've never seen the original post as it was edited.

And if a person is dyslexic (yes, that's how it's spelled), if they tell me that, I'll apologize.

I know, we're dealing with theories now but I kinda have a problem with the attitude that it must be ok to be rude to someone whose only "crime" is to write a quick post forgetting some linebreaks.

I don't care if you have a problem with it or not.

Ice

[rane]

Originally Posted by Iceman

The only wacko thing is you putting spelling and cooking side by side. You can't do that. I played along, but since you can't seem to grasp the metaphore yourself, maybe you should try to write without them then.

And I will once again say, that your claim makes just as much sense as the cooking example. That was my point. Your claim was not logic. I chose a wacko example to point that out.

Originally Posted by Iceman

As far as I remember you've never seen the original post as it was edited.

I dont know if i've seen the original post or not. It doesnt say anywhere that it's been edited during the period of time I read it and until now.

Originally Posted by Iceman

And if a person is dyslexic (yes, that's how it's spelled), if they tell me that, I'll apologize.

Actually dyslectic is perfectly valid as well, as (according to the dictionary) its a variant of dyslexic. Why would it even be needed for a dyslectic person to inform you of that, just to avoid the rudeness?

Originally Posted by Iceman

I don't care if you have a problem with it or not.

Yeah I know that now. What a great great person you are. Please continue to insult people who doesnt live up to your standards. Just be prepared to look bad and arrogant as there will be people defending those other people.

[rane]

Originally Posted by Thomas Anderson

What Ice meant is that a person generally becomes a writer from a love and respect for language, and as such they would never degrade the language into txt speak, be it in their free time or not.

I think the keyword here is "generally". You cant assume every writer becomes a write from the love/respect for language. Many do it because of money, fame and most luckily do it because they have a story to tell.

However I will agree tho...that I dont like the tendency in peoples use of txt/sms slang language. The worst parts of that includes using z instead of s, spelling things wrong on purpose and in modern young slang and finally..how the nerds online spell (wOOt...hez so gay etc.).

[Thomas Anderson]

Originally Posted by rane

Yeah I know that now. What a great great person you are. Please continue to insult people who doesnt live up to your standards. Just be prepared to look bad and arrogant as there will be people defending those other people.

So it's arrogant for Ice to want people to speak properly, but not for you to say it's ok to type like an idiot?

Originally Posted by rane

I think the keyword here is "generally". You cant assume every writer becomes a write from the love/respect for language. Many do it because of money, fame and most luckily do it because they have a story to tell.

Well if they don't have a love and respect for language, and are doing it purely for the money, I bet not many of them will last for very long.

[Thomas Anderson]

Originally Posted by rane

However I will agree tho...that I dont like the tendency in peoples use of txt/sms slang language. The worst parts of that includes using z instead of s, spelling things wrong on purpose and in modern young slang and finally..how the nerds online spell (wOOt...hez so gay etc.).

Then perhaps, had you seen the original post, you'd have been on our 'side' in fact

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by rane

However I will agree tho...that I dont like the tendency in peoples use of txt/sms slang language. The worst parts of that includes using z instead of s, spelling things wrong on purpose and in modern young slang and finally..how the nerds online spell (wOOt...hez so gay etc.).

So you're actually agreeing with us?

Ice

[Thomas Anderson]

Originally Posted by Iceman

So you're actually agreeing with us?

Ice

You're forgetting though - people who write like that are annoying, but we are the rude ones for pointing it out to them

[rane]

Originally Posted by Thomas Anderson

So it's arrogant for Ice to want people to speak properly, but not for you to say it's ok to type like an idiot?

Dont draw conclusions so fast, Thomas. Please show me where i've written "its ok to type like an idiot". But thats typical...start with the namecalling personal attacks (you're indicating the original poster was typing like an idiot).

To answer your question better: Yes, his WAY of telling a person to speak properly...was arrogant. None of this would have happend, had he simply written (in public) something like: "Could you please check your post next time before hitting the send button? Its very hard to read".

Originally Posted by Thomas Anderson

Well if they don't have a love and respect for language, and are doing it purely for the money, I bet not many of them will last for very long.

Maybe you're right. I wouldnt know