For Grammar Police a list of famous bad spellers

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by Rikku
my spelling is almost perfect. it's just a shame i only post when i'm drunk.

also, are you sure about da vinci? couldn't he write poetry with his feet whilst drawing helicopters?

Did a couple searches,to confirm what I thought I knew.By god they comfirmed it.

My eyes! God damn, my eyes are on fire! What is this horrendous level of grammar I witness!!!

Rikku, you claim to be a good speller yet you don't even use capital letters at the start of a sentence, nor did you capitalize the singular "i". You didn't even capitalize any part of Leonardo da Vinci's name!

rockymcgilicutty, spaces man, spaces!!! There should be a space after commas and after the end of a sentence. This is not rocket science. Oh the horror... the HORROR!

edit on 8/12/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

Thankyouforthatthought.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


I'm glad to see you took my post in a joking manner. I was waiting for you to wig out.

Honestly I don't give a crap about grammar as long as the text is easily readable. When I need to start putting effort into figuring out what it actually says, then it's reaching a point where action needs to be taken.

But if it's just a lack of caps or a lack of spaces, I'm not going to complain or correct the writer in most cases, because it will still be perfectly readable, and at the end of the day that's all that matters.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Content matters more than construct.

I don't think that Picasso could have drawn a stick figure - but that didn't seem to stop him from painting. Van Gogh had such an unusual style that people, to this very day, try to come up with medical theories to explain it.

Oh, and I know of one book that is poorly written, full of archaic phrases, and is exceptionally difficult to read, much less ingest. It's read by a few hundred million people per day.

~Heff

Painting isn't about trying to communicate an idea from one mind to the next. I want to tell you what is on my mind, and I want you to understand it. Therefore, it is MY responsibility to convey that thought in language, structure, and context that I know you are used to.

My thought - my responsibility.

It would be ignorant of me to make it YOUR responsibility to try and figure out what I'm saying, or writing.

Let me get this right.You are saying painting isn't a form of expression?Or you were trying to be grammatically correct and failed to convey your point?

SEE! This is why grammar is so important! If you can't understand what is clearly written, then how much harder is it to understand unclear sentences??? Here is the first line again: Painting isn't about trying to communicate an idea ***from one mind to the next***. Not from a secondary source. Not from a paint brush. Not from sculpture. Not from pictures. From one mind to the next mind.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Content matters more than construct.

I don't think that Picasso could have drawn a stick figure - but that didn't seem to stop him from painting. Van Gogh had such an unusual style that people, to this very day, try to come up with medical theories to explain it.

Oh, and I know of one book that is poorly written, full of archaic phrases, and is exceptionally difficult to read, much less ingest. It's read by a few hundred million people per day.

~Heff

Painting isn't about trying to communicate an idea from one mind to the next. I want to tell you what is on my mind, and I want you to understand it. Therefore, it is MY responsibility to convey that thought in language, structure, and context that I know you are used to.

My thought - my responsibility.

It would be ignorant of me to make it YOUR responsibility to try and figure out what I'm saying, or writing.

Let me get this right.You are saying painting isn't a form of expression?Or you were trying to be grammatically correct and failed to convey your point?

SEE! This is why grammar is so important! If you can't understand what is clearly written, then how much harder is it to understand unclear sentences??? Here is the first line again: Painting isn't about trying to communicate an idea ***from one mind to the next***. Not from a secondary source. Not from a paint brush. Not from sculpture. Not from pictures. From one mind to the next mind.

edit on 12/8/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

So someone painting is not in your opinon trying to communicate their idea to another.Remember in fine art everyone can see a different meaning.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Content matters more than construct.

I don't think that Picasso could have drawn a stick figure - but that didn't seem to stop him from painting. Van Gogh had such an unusual style that people, to this very day, try to come up with medical theories to explain it.

Oh, and I know of one book that is poorly written, full of archaic phrases, and is exceptionally difficult to read, much less ingest. It's read by a few hundred million people per day.

~Heff

Painting isn't about trying to communicate an idea from one mind to the next. I want to tell you what is on my mind, and I want you to understand it. Therefore, it is MY responsibility to convey that thought in language, structure, and context that I know you are used to.

My thought - my responsibility.

It would be ignorant of me to make it YOUR responsibility to try and figure out what I'm saying, or writing.

Let me get this right.You are saying painting isn't a form of expression?Or you were trying to be grammatically correct and failed to convey your point?

SEE! This is why grammar is so important! If you can't understand what is clearly written, then how much harder is it to understand unclear sentences??? Here is the first line again: Painting isn't about trying to communicate an idea ***from one mind to the next***. Not from a secondary source. Not from a paint brush. Not from sculpture. Not from pictures. From one mind to the next mind.

edit on 12/8/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

So someone painting is not in your opinon trying to communicate their idea to another.Remember in fine art everyone can see a different meaning.

Please read it AGAIN! Is that what I wrote?

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Content matters more than construct.

I don't think that Picasso could have drawn a stick figure - but that didn't seem to stop him from painting. Van Gogh had such an unusual style that people, to this very day, try to come up with medical theories to explain it.

Oh, and I know of one book that is poorly written, full of archaic phrases, and is exceptionally difficult to read, much less ingest. It's read by a few hundred million people per day.

~Heff

Painting isn't about trying to communicate an idea from one mind to the next. I want to tell you what is on my mind, and I want you to understand it. Therefore, it is MY responsibility to convey that thought in language, structure, and context that I know you are used to.

My thought - my responsibility.

It would be ignorant of me to make it YOUR responsibility to try and figure out what I'm saying, or writing.

Let me get this right.You are saying painting isn't a form of expression?Or you were trying to be grammatically correct and failed to convey your point?

SEE! This is why grammar is so important! If you can't understand what is clearly written, then how much harder is it to understand unclear sentences??? Here is the first line again: Painting isn't about trying to communicate an idea ***from one mind to the next***. Not from a secondary source. Not from a paint brush. Not from sculpture. Not from pictures. From one mind to the next mind.

edit on 12/8/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

So someone painting is not in your opinon trying to communicate their idea to another.Remember in fine art everyone can see a different meaning.

Please read it AGAIN! Is that what I wrote?

Ah contrar my friend with no hair. The asterisks in the sentence do not appear to be proper grammar.I am only trying to read it in the terms you have proposed.Should I try not to, so it will make's sense.If I did that I would know what it means.

You can have the most revolutionary concept in the world, have all the evidence to back it up and be able to change the way we see life in a second, but if you can't communicate that idea to other people it's useless.

There is no point in having ideas without having a way to communicate them, similarly there is no point in being able to communicate with anyone and not having anything worthwhile to communicate.

As long as you get your point across it shouldn't really matter how you do it, but I think it's easier to understand an idea if it's properly structured and presented. There's a difference between to, too and two, in some cases it doesn't matter which one you use, the point is clear anyway, but in others it can completely colour the idea that someone takes away from your post. I think it's easier if everyone knows the rules and sticks to them in terms of communication, but I appreciate that not everyone has the capability to do that, it could be through intoxication, a disability or someone could be typing in a second or third language. The only thing that pisses me off with regards to communication is laziness.

Interesting point, I read on the internet a while ago (so it must be true) that it takes people longer to decipher txt lnguge dn it svs da rita in typin it lol.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Ah contrar my friend with no hair. The asterisks in the sentence do not appear to be proper grammar.I am only trying to read it in the terms you have proposed.Should I try not to, so it will make's sense.If I did that I would know what it means.

edit on 8-12-2012 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)

Those asterisks weren't in the original and very simple-to-understand post that you misread.

Funny Some of us are just OCD about it or something.
I can catch a typo in a flash and I dunno why. I see them in ads, websites, coupons, and the news even.
To further encourage my OCD spelling behavior I used to have a job doing labeling and messages for mailings. We were also taught to read backwards to pick up on typos we might have missed.

Now backwards read I that not.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Content matters more than construct.

I don't think that Picasso could have drawn a stick figure - but that didn't seem to stop him from painting. Van Gogh had such an unusual style that people, to this very day, try to come up with medical theories to explain it.

Oh, and I know of one book that is poorly written, full of archaic phrases, and is exceptionally difficult to read, much less ingest. It's read by a few hundred million people per day.

~Heff

Painting isn't about trying to communicate an idea from one mind to the next. I want to tell you what is on my mind, and I want you to understand it. Therefore, it is MY responsibility to convey that thought in language, structure, and context that I know you are used to.

My thought - my responsibility.

It would be ignorant of me to make it YOUR responsibility to try and figure out what I'm saying, or writing. [/quote/]











"Painting isn't about trying to communicate an idea from one mind to the next" that is a qoute from your text.Then tell me what is it about?Are you saying a painting is not a idea?That the painter isn't trying to communicate their thoughts with their art.If it was just a picture to look at,there would be all Polaroid's on the walls of the Louvre.

edit on 8-12-2012 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)

reply to post by jiggerj

Quote "Painting isn't about trying to communicate an idea from one mind to the next"

How does a person misread that?That quote comes from a person who dosn't know what art is.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Quote "Painting isn't about trying to communicate an idea from one mind to the next"

How does a person misread that?That quote comes from a person who dosn't know what art is.

edit on 8-12-2012 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)

Okay. One step at a time. What is the subject of this thread? It's about grammar, not paint. We are not talking about art. We are talking about the ability to write clear sentences. We are talking about transferring one's ideas directly into the minds of others. NOT indirectly. Unless you can take a paint brush and stick it in someone's ear to paint an image directly into someone's mind, then art is irrelevant to this topic.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Quote "Painting isn't about trying to communicate an idea from one mind to the next"

How does a person misread that?That quote comes from a person who dosn't know what art is.

edit on 8-12-2012 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)

Okay. One step at a time. What is the subject of this thread? It's about grammar, not paint. We are not talking about art. We are talking about the ability to write clear sentences. We are talking about transferring one's ideas directly into the minds of others. NOT indirectly. Unless you can take a paint brush and stick it in someone's ear to paint an image directly into someone's mind, then art is irrelevant to this topic.

Then why didn't you say that.In a clear and concise reply.Or didn't you have the ability to imply that thought.I am ready for you to change the subject to suit your needs.Afterall pining you to a answer is harder that trying to nail Jello to a wall.

reply to post by jiggerj


You are asserting that writing is not an art?

Literature (from Latin litterae (plural); letter) is the art of written work and can, in some circumstances, refer exclusively to published sources. The word literature literally means "things made from letters" and the pars pro toto term "letters" is sometimes used to signify "literature," as in the figures of speech "arts and letters" and "man of letters." Literature is commonly classified as having two major forms—fiction and non-fiction—and two major techniques—poetry and prose.

Source

Any medium meant to convey ideas and emotions is, by its very nature, artistic. Both Da Vinci and Yeats have been mentioned in this thread. Both were artists who gravitated towards different mediums of expression.

If someone provided you with a profoundly insightful or touching letter, would you disregard the contents simply because their handwriting was unpracticed or their grammar was substandard? If a person came into the room to tell you to get out, that the building was burning - would you ignore it because that person happened to have a stammer or a stutter? I doubt it.

As I stated above, content matters more than construct.

A caveat? I despise "txtspk" and personally tend to ignore those who use it. Still, if the message is relevant, the format it is delivered in matters not.

~Heff

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by jiggerj

 

You are asserting that writing is not an art?

LOL You people keep supporting the idea that writing clearly is important while claiming that it isn't. Apparently reading comprehension is difficult enough for some (not you, but others) when an idea is conveyed clearly, making it that much more difficult when it isn't written clearly. Writing is an art form that puts your ideas on paper and then is transferred directly into the reader's mind - word for word. All of the other arts (painting, sculpting) is indirect where your ideas may be open interpretation.