Disappointment with the grammar and spelling of some TA users

I've noticed that many of the forum discussions that TA has tweeted lately have contained glaring grammatical and spelling errors.  I find this disappointing and even personally embarrassing as it inevitably reflects not only on the original poster but on the forum as a whole and, by extension, the larger atheist community.  I know written communication isn't everything, and it certainly isn't a high priority among the public generally, but we should try to meet a higher standard.  Given the unlikelihood that individual posters will suddenly take more care when writing, I think the operators of the site's Twitter feed should consider not tweeting discussion titles with serious errors.

That's one poster's opinion, for whatever it's worth.

Tags: grammar, spelling

Views: 2953

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"I think the operators of the site's Twitter feed should consider not tweeting discussion titles with serious errors."

This is restricting the views being shared of those not passing a grammar test.

 

I wonder how many atheists are pro-censorship?

Actually, would be choosing to not promote those views under the site's name, which is quite a bit different. While you may still find it disagreeable, it is a far cry from censorship of members.

On a practical level Kris, where would you draw the line?

Miss spelling?

Poor Grammar?

cAPITALISATION?

If the site's moderators had to check every comment & post, the extra resources required would pose a problem of then funding those resources.

No one was proposing such a thing. At the time, the OP did not realize that the tweets on new site content were automated. His proposal was simply to not tweet subject lines which contained major errors. This would hardly require moderators to check every post.

Hereis an interesting HuffingtonPost article about our schools' failure to teach writing skills.

Your post contains three logical fallacies please correct them.

..admittedly, one of my idiosyncrasies involves, as you've likely noticed, the use of 2/3 of an ellipsis when I begin any typed message. Furthermore, I am guilty, on occasion, of being negligent with my capitalization if I'm mobile. THAT SAID, I hope I won't seem crass when I wholeheartedly agree with you; it IS rather unacceptable to misspell KEY words in a post. I do enjoy reading TA posts by members  with a deeper command of the English language and I do, conversely, feel less apt to read posts by those who lack the common sense enough to employ a synonym; should their initial word elude their  capacity to spell it. I suppose that DOES sound bitchy, but it wouldn't hurt to utilize spell check (if nothing else). The hippocrates discussion was a potentially good one, but I couldn't quite manage to involve myself.  

I'm not sure if you are holding some standard of education to atheists with this post.

You find it personally embarrassing? It reflects on the forum as a whole?

I couldn't disagree more. Sorry.

In my opinion, I think it's outrageously inconsiderate to call for someones input to be removed because it doesn't meet your grammar expectations.

We must realise that our native languages are constantly evolving as generations decide to add to, or change things. I've sure learned how my language has been changed to suit Americans. I like to call it "Bastardised English". But I don't complain much. Only about the refusal to drop the standard measurement for the more superior metric. The rest...I couldn't give a shit.

I would agree, to some extent, that a lot of us atheists are particularly smart and do consciously strive to make the best of our communication skills. However we can't hold a STANDARD. That's just wrong. Surely that's not what we're about.

Am I wrong here?

You're thoughts apply mostly to colloquial SPEECH, not expository WRITING. 

If you're analogizing the evolution of language to the evolution of species, bear in mind that in order to survive, a new species has to be better in some way and survive the gauntlet. Likewise, evolutions in language have be better at expressing thoughts. Expressing thoughts requires something obvious: rules and standards and conventions understood by both the writer and reader.

You talk as though something new in language is ipso facto good just because it's new, and that we who dislike it should just stand back and salute it. Actually, we are the gauntlet.

not at all analogizing.

Merely stating that i am indifferent to the various depictions of my English language. And it is my opinion that your American English is pretty much an evolved form of English.

I guess was trying to point out that I feel we shouldn't discriminate posts because of grammar or spelling...it's pretty pointless and petty. Those people have a valid input too.

If they don't make it through the grammar gauntlet, are they not welcome?

I don't believe I am part of some gauntlet though. I don't hold myself that high yet.

@William - RE: "American English is pretty much an evolved form of English."

Some would say, "devolved" --

Those people have a valid input too.

That has yet to be proven.

RSS

Blog Posts

The tale of the twelve officers

Posted by Davis Goodman on August 27, 2014 at 3:04am 4 Comments

Birthday Present

Posted by Caila Rowe on August 26, 2014 at 1:29am 13 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service