: Does anyone else wish Gideon could post a rebuttal without addressing the other poster's grammer or lack thereof?
I made a long post in which I answered (as I saw it) the previous poster's comments. If anyone is mortally hurt by a two-bit crack about spelling, I'm sorry. Could you not find anything else to disagree to, though? I'm sure there are reasoned responses to my arguments; equally, I'm sure they're not beyond the wit of those who read this room.
As for the spelling thing, I'll restate the point I made a few months ago here...
A lot of people on the planet don't speak English as a first language. If you start presenting them with 'unusual' English (i.e. excessive idioms, bad spelling/grammar, you get the idea...) they are going to find it difficult to understand. Which means that there is a genuine reason for trying to keep the English as 'textbook' as possible. Including the fiddly bits.
By and large, I don't go for typos either. I go for persistent 'wrong' English.
The other reason is probably a personal flaw. When posters pop up and start accusing myself and others of a lack of "intellectual power to grasp lifes simplist truths"(sic), I tend to get a sarcastic little voice inside me saying "well, bucko, you don't appear to have the intellectual power to grasp your own native language".
I admit it's a bit of a cheap crack, especially when there are better points to attack and I'll try not to do it in future.
On the other hand, can you answer or refute my points without resorting to counterattacking on the spelling issue? Do you have any answers to the _real_ points of my post?
1. McD's is nasty.
2. They're causing the destruction of large bits of planet
3. Anarchists don't alienate.
4. Orwell was a lefty.
5. Money has no smell.
And as I said, prove me wrong. I dare you.