"I am in fact a student, and while I do use the
spellcheck I certainly don't depend on it, and I
completely ignore anything the grammer check says,
because it is moronic."
It could be probably since your mother tongue could be
English and because of your familiarity with the
But here we are talking about the 'creative' usage of
language and not on the correct usage of it.
--- Tabitha Arnesen <[log in to unmask]>
> Hi all,
> Just jumping in on the syntax bandwagon:
> Where do you all get the idea that all students
> or even use the grammar check on our computers?
> I am in fact a student, and while I do use the
> spellcheck I certainly don't depend on it, and I
> completely ignore anything the grammer check says,
> because it is moronic.
> I've taken a quick survey, and none of my friends
> the grammar check, agreeing that it was likely
> by a spastic.
> I've also read a lot of very bad books written way
> before the internet came along, and they were far
> sloppier than anything I've read written (in book
> form) since. I don't mind bad writing if its on the
> web, coz hey, who cares?
> Surely its even easier to develop an individual
> now as there is much more of an opportunity to
> establish what we like? For example, a lot of stuff
> written during, lets call them the olden days, is
> incredibly stodgy and in a style that barely if at
> conveys the personality of the author. I read a lot
> of things on the web, and while it may not be
> in the best way ever, it at least has a very vivid
> Oh, oh, another thing. I've never been taught
> grammar, and I know its not my strong point, but in
> these happy days of the sweet, sweet internet it
> take me a matter of seconds to find a really top
> webpage on it, if I ever feel the need.
> Tab, x
> --- Vishvesh Obla <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > George,
> > I really don’t mind your name calling. I am not
> > naďve as to think what I write would fetch me
> > bouquets, and not brickbats ! I don’t want
> > either. So, please go ahead. I would only be
> > interested in what you are saying and see if I can
> > find anything substantial to me. But please don’t
> > assume that I am throwing a flame-bait.
> > But then let me make some clarifications as well.
> > My
> > point was not focused on the syntactical aspects
> > alone
> > of our writing, which is the worst affected by
> > software tools and the internet. Ms.Nancy gave a
> > good
> > example. I am sure it must be a nightmare to any
> > teacher today. Microsoft word has its own
> > programmed
> > logic of American English grammar and would flash
> > error for many perfect sentences. Not to mention
> > that
> > you can ever develop a style of your own creative
> > writing with sentences, for example, that need not
> > necessarily have a subject. Students in the US
> > fifth grade onwards use some word processing tool
> > and
> > never bother to look at how sentences are
> > constructed,
> > just as most of them never bother to use a simple
> > logical faculty of arithmetic and would prefer to
> > tap
> > a calculating machine today, even for simple
> > calculations as, say a 8% interest on a $25
> > !
> > Ironically, students and the generality of the
> > masses
> > (a cashier, for instance) fare much better on
> > aspects in third world countries ! When you are
> > used
> > to such mechanical devices from a tender age, what
> > kind of quality in writing could you expect? I am
> > also in the software industry, though not so long
> > you have been, but then I don’t defend or find
> > with it just for the sake of satisfying any
> > desire to do so.
> > When the associated technological development of
> > word
> > processing by its programmed reasoning has a major
> > role even in vital matters as constructing a
> > sentence
> > which gets its life, not just by the syntactical
> > factors, but by the power of ‘the things of the
> > mind’,
> > as Mathew Arnold would put it in the generality of
> > the
> > masses from a tender age, I think I have enough
> > reasons to question the possibility of any quality
> > of
> > writing in general.
> > That being said, I do agree that the reasons for
> > sloppy writing, if we believe that writing is so
> > today, cannot be solely attributed to the
> > I
> > didn’t say so either. My argument was based on
> > factors:
> > 1. The value of our reading is directly
> > proportional
> > to the efforts we take for it.
> > 2. A discipline for reading presupposes a
> > sacrifice
> > that is related with such efforts.
> > Based on the above, I find that the internet has
> > played a major role by its over-abundance of
> > ‘material’ or rather ‘information’ that one who
> > access to it could easily lose hold in what one
> > ought
> > to perceive from his reading habits. I hope you
> > wouldn’t ask me what capacity I have to determine
> > what
> > one ‘ought to perceive’. For I am assuming that
> > are here involved in a study where we seek for
> > something more than ‘information’. I would
> > appreciate if you could argue further in that
> > instead of making vague references to ‘elitist’
> > views.
> > I don’t mind to be called one, when Eliot himself
> > has
> > been called so! For, I know when you make a
> > statement with an issue as that, it is general
> > tendency to look at all the associated details of
> > and harp on them, forgetting conveniently the crux
> > of
> > it!
> > - vishvesh
> > --- George Carless <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > > Well, on namecalling, I do not recall anyone
> > > (certainly not me)
> > > > "claim[ing] in a loud voice that they are the
> > > downfall of civilization."
> > > > That is another form of namecalling or at
> > > ad hominem/ad feminem.
> > >
> > > I have perhaps extrapolated or exaggerated too
> > far,
> > > but I was not
> > > suggesting that you had made such a claim--but I
> > > hope you would not
> > > mistake my hyperbole for a direct quotation.
> > > is a matter of style,
> > > and if I do exaggerate the literal sense of what
> > > Vishvesh has said then
> > > it is because I have seen his line of reasoning
> > time
> > > and again, and
> > > because I do think it's an incorrect and a
> > > foolish view. Again,
> > > I do not for a second believe or argue that
> > grammar
> > > is unimportant, and
> > > nor that syntax and style can be policed by
> > > software. But I simply do
=== message truncated ===
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.