Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Killer Whale wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 11:33 am

RedSparrows wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 10:05 am
Sure, I like it when punctuation, spelling and the rest are in order. But come on.

It's just such hard work to decipher. I've blocked them in the past, not because I wasn't interested in what they had to say, but because it wasn't worth the effort of translating it into English. It's not about The Weeping Angel being a 'thicko', I don't think they are, it's about them not having enough respect for the rest of us to do their own proof reading. Why expect me to do all their work for them?

I appreciate that, and I'd prefer clearer posts too. But the pile-on is unpleasant, repetitive, and fruitless.

Red Sparrows wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 11:33 am it's about them not having enough respect for the rest of us to do their own proof reading. Why expect me to do all their work for them?

Nail struck squarely right on the head, there.

Mrs Abernathy has a Whatsapp group set up with about six of her oldest friends , They use it to organise social get togethers - birthday meals out, coffee afternoons, and so on.

One woman on there texts in a sort of stream-of-consciousness Joycean mode, with absolutely no regard for correct spelling, the rules of grammar and syntax, punctuation, or quite often even the right word for what she means to say.

I've long since given up even trying to understand her latest piece of gibberish when Mrs A shows it to me, bewildered as to what she could possibly be meaning to say and looking to me for help to understand.

It is, I'm afraid, and as Red says, lazy, slapdash, and above all, grossly disrespectful, even insulting. Why on earth should someone you want to convey information to have to work so hard just to understand what that information is? The onus is on the communicator to take care to communicate clearly, and that's easy, because there are very clear and simple rules for doing so that we all learn in early-years schooling.

RedSparrows wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 10:05 am Is this really necessary? Every fucking time, it descends into 'stop being a thicko, thicko'.

Sure, I like it when punctuation, spelling and the rest are in order. But come on.

Re: Case.

Surely observing the 'transparency' of 'theatre' is a new level of completely inept, moronic thinking about politics? The libs are often mocked for taking things too seriously, appealing to reason where there is no interest in reason etc, but to take the spectacle as a sincere activity is just plain moronic.

Thanks.

RedSparrows wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 11:36 am

Killer Whale wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 11:33 am

RedSparrows wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 10:05 am
Sure, I like it when punctuation, spelling and the rest are in order. But come on.

It's just such hard work to decipher. I've blocked them in the past, not because I wasn't interested in what they had to say, but because it wasn't worth the effort of translating it into English. It's not about The Weeping Angel being a 'thicko', I don't think they are, it's about them not having enough respect for the rest of us to do their own proof reading. Why expect me to do all their work for them?

I appreciate that, and I'd prefer clearer posts too. But the pile-on is unpleasant, repetitive, and fruitless.

Once again thanks. It's nice to know I've got someone on my side.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 12:23 pm
Once again thanks. It's nice to know I've got someone on my side.

I think you underestimate how many people actually are on your “side”, or even what the sides are. I’d like to hear what you have to say, even if I might disagree. It’s not the content, or the creator. It’s the delivery.

The best interior designer won’t work up a great look, source all the materials and then pitch up at your gaff with 6 tins of Dulux and a load of rollers and tell you to get on with it. It’s literally a few seconds work to show you care about your point, but that makes a HUGE difference in perception of your point.

Who's "Jolyon Starmer"? I thought it was clear enough that there was just a comma missed out. But each to their own.

Can we just agree to move on?

Actually, Tubbs, no.

I must have some sort of reading-autism, because I read what people have written and try to absorb their meaning.Punctuation, grammar and often spelling play a part in that, and I find it hard to understand English which is lacking in those key elements.

Also I take Crabbie's post seriously; it is beholden on the author to make their post comprehensible to their audience, and to fail to do so because of lack of care and checking is somewhat beyond discourteous.

{This post was proofread and one spelling error corrected. How it's done.]

I found it comprehensible. Can't we just agree to disagree about the comprehensibility and move on?

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 2:20 pm I found it comprehensible. Can't we just agree to disagree about the comprehensibility and move on?

Well, no. That would be to miss the point that yes, it is about comprehensibility, but much more so, it is about an author’s responsibility, as a matter of basic courtesy and respect, to spend (literally) a few seconds before posting to make sure that what has been written is both comprehensible and clear in order that the reader(s) may easily read a contribution without being puzzled as to its meaning.

[This post contained four typos, all corrected before posting. Lemon Squeezy.]

You could have left the four typos in, and it wouldn't have bothered me personally. And I used to be an old school Latin teacher, a profession that uses so much red ink that I'm surprised they don't claim tax relief on it.

And I used to be an old-school English teacher, and it bothers me!

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 2:20 pm I found it comprehensible. Can't we just agree to disagree about the comprehensibility and move on?

It’s a balance. If you want to get your point across really well, it helps to make it well. If you just want to make a point and be done, then by all means just rattle it off if that doesn’t bother you.

What I think is bordering on unreasonable is if you often do the latter, but then get prickly about people being rubbed up the wrong way by it - especially when you make a point of saying it’s no problem for you to sort it, but you just choose not to.

As to why I’m bothering to reply again, it’s an interest of mine because I do a lot of work with online accessibility. It’s not just about being a grammar pedant, or picky, or elitist. It can really affect people’s ability to understand and join in. For example, the main group of users for screenreaders isn’t the blind or visually impaired, but people with dyslexia or similar disordered reading. Stuff not formatted well just adds to a person’s burden of understanding if they have such issues, and so it’s just a really good and thoughtful habit to get into.

But, it’s personal choice and there are no literal grammar police, so I’ll not bring it up again.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 3:43 pm And I used to be an old-school English teacher, and it bothers me!

Ha ha, I think you've won that exchange.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 3:41 pm You could have left the four typos in, and it wouldn't have bothered me personally. And I used to be an old school Latin teacher, a profession that uses so much red ink that I'm surprised they don't claim tax relief on it.

Talk about missing the point. I’m not a former teacher of anything, but it bothered me, personally, which is why I took a few seconds to correct them. Which bit of “posting carefully and correctly as a matter principally of courtesy and respect” didn’t you understand ?

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 1:08 pm

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 12:23 pm
Once again thanks. It's nice to know I've got someone on my side.

I think you underestimate how many people actually are on your “side”, or even what the sides are. I’d like to hear what you have to say, even if I might disagree. It’s not the content, or the creator. It’s the delivery.

The best interior designer won’t work up a great look, source all the materials and then pitch up at your gaff with 6 tins of Dulux and a load of rollers and tell you to get on with it. It’s literally a few seconds work to show you care about your point, but that makes a HUGE difference in perception of your point.

RedSparrows doesn't think I'm an arsehole and right now that means something.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 6:30 pm

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 1:08 pm

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 12:23 pm
Once again thanks. It's nice to know I've got someone on my side.

I think you underestimate how many people actually are on your “side”, or even what the sides are. I’d like to hear what you have to say, even if I might disagree. It’s not the content, or the creator. It’s the delivery.

The best interior designer won’t work up a great look, source all the materials and then pitch up at your gaff with 6 tins of Dulux and a load of rollers and tell you to get on with it. It’s literally a few seconds work to show you care about your point, but that makes a HUGE difference in perception of your point.

RedSparrows doesn't think I'm an arsehole and right now that means something.

No, cos posting less-than-excellently-written things doesn't make one an arsehole.

Is there not scope for Angel to try a smidge harder with stating things clearly, and the rest to not lose it when this isn't achieved? We're all grown ups, aren't we?

RedSparrows wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 6:50 pm
Is there not scope for Angel to try a smidge harder with stating things clearly, and the rest to not lose it when this isn't achieved? We're all grown ups, aren't we?

Of course there is. But he needs to get started. So far he has shown every sign of rejecting perfectly reasonable advice.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 6:18 pm
Talk about missing the point. I’m not a former teacher of anything, but it bothered me, personally, which is why I took a few seconds to correct them. Which bit of “posting carefully and correctly as a matter principally of courtesy and respect” didn’t you understand ?

The point was that I didn't think somebody being a bit sloppy with punctuation was a case of them being disrespectful. But as I say, each to their own.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 7:11 pm The point was that I didn't think somebody being a bit sloppy with punctuation was a case of them being disrespectful. But as I say, each to their own.

You’ve missed it again. The point isn’t just “being a bit sloppy with punctuation”, it’s the failure to self-check and correct, and the impression of discourtesy that that can, and does, create.

I don't see not checking punctuation as suggesting discourtesy either.