Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cassiel" data-source="post: 2107950" data-attributes="member: 29006">What is the purpose of correcting someone's spelling, however? Do you do it because it's the easiest thing to catch someone on? I have two points in signaling the errors in your post above: the first is that in each case I know what you mean to say--there's no ambiguity, so no reason for me to call you on them in a casual messageboard environment (I'd be a prick to do so); the second is that in order to correct someone's spelling, the same is true: to offer someone the correct spelling of a word, you have to know the word they meant to spell in the first place, which means you've already read and understood it. Unless the poster has mangled a word so badly that you actually have no idea what they were trying to say, on what grounds do you correct them?&nbsp;I'm not defending Kaos--DaveStebbins, I think, has already neatly summarized the gesture of making this thread. In fact I agree with everything you say in your post. It would be oversimplifying the situation, though, to say that it was either Kaos' fault or ENWorlders': Kaos may need to toughen up, but ENWorlders aren't exactly innocent, either. To put it in slightly different terms, when you say &quot;*we*,&quot; you fail to account for the fact that Kaos is part of, or should be part of, that &quot;*we*.&quot; He's an ENWorlder too, so isolating him as an other makes you look very elitist, which I don't think is what you're after.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cassiel, post: 2107950, member: 29006"] What is the purpose of correcting someone's spelling, however? Do you do it because it's the easiest thing to catch someone on? I have two points in signaling the errors in your post above: the first is that in each case I know what you mean to say--there's no ambiguity, so no reason for me to call you on them in a casual messageboard environment (I'd be a prick to do so); the second is that in order to correct someone's spelling, the same is true: to offer someone the correct spelling of a word, you have to know the word they meant to spell in the first place, which means you've already read and understood it. Unless the poster has mangled a word so badly that you actually have no idea what they were trying to say, on what grounds do you correct them? I'm not defending Kaos--DaveStebbins, I think, has already neatly summarized the gesture of making this thread. In fact I [i]agree[/i] with everything you say in your post. It would be oversimplifying the situation, though, to say that it was either Kaos' fault or ENWorlders': Kaos may need to toughen up, but ENWorlders aren't exactly innocent, either. To put it in slightly different terms, when you say "*we*," you fail to account for the fact that Kaos is part of, or should be part of, that "*we*." He's an ENWorlder too, so isolating him as an other makes you look very elitist, which I don't think is what you're after. [/QUOTE]

Verification