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.
I applaud your dedication to quality. As I stated before, I tend to be a bit picky about my contributions as well. My perspective on this issue comes from several people that I’ve known most of my life. They are intelligent, insightful people who just happen to have rather undeveloped writing skills. I look at discounting the content of a written argument due to spelling or grammar to be akin to discounting the content of a spoken argument due to a stutter or lisp.
Sure, there are still going to be exceptions, but for the most part the question stands: why are people so adamant about not improving?
Some people choose other priorities in life; others don't have so much of a choice. I prefer not to speculate in that area, much less make value judgements based on those assumptions.
I simply focus on content over form in discussion, while you put more emphasis on form. I see value in both approaches -- To each their own.
why are people so adamant about not improving?
Some people choose other priorities
That doesn’t answer the question.
Actually it does. The reasons for those choices vary between people, and I’m not going to make qualitative assessments for reason/choice combinations where I am ignorant of the specifics, and that are none of my business.
the form is part of the content
I’m in partial agreement in that the form (spoken, verbal etc.), and the quality of the form, has an effect on the content, much in the way that a weak radio signal can cause static on the receiving end. However, the content is simply the information being conveyed. Weakness in form decreases efficiency of communicating the content, while high quality in form increases the efficiency and requires less clarification.
One of the reasons why my top preference is to communicate in person is that I consider engaging with the other person to be as important as the content of the discussion. If someone’s communications skills are weak, then there are more instances for clarification, and those instances can be very rewarding in unexpected ways. I used to work with a person who stuttered when he became nervous or passionate about something. A little patience and understanding paid off, because he was extremely intelligent and insightful, and he became a good friend.
I also understand that the only actions that I can control are my own, so that is where I focus. I don’t see where trying to make others conform to my standards (in whatever area) would be a fruitful use of my time and energy. I also don’t see where I could claim that authority.
Sorry this is so long; it's late, I've got the flu, and I'm a little high on Nyquil.
Some years ago, within this century - I traded Futures (Commodities, for those who don't know the difference), and on the Raging Bull website, on which I posted, under the name, p_g_gargleblaster, Raging Bull had an "Ignore" button, that allowed members to ignore those whom they chose not to follow. This site doesn't have that feature, but if it did, there are at least two, upon whom I would use it, one of whom, would appear to be your adversary.
I'm not high on Nyquil, but it's Friday night, and if you'll excuse me, there's a lot of drunk I need to get --
I know that a few years ago, in the education system here, when a child wrote a story, spelling and grammar were not picked up, so as not to 'disturb' what the child was trying to say in their story - big mistake, I think.
And about stuttering, and speech impediments, they can be controlled with Elocution training from speech therapists. This sort of re-education has come a long way in the last thirty years. That is what the movie 'The Kings' Speech' was all about.
RE: "Why are people so adamant about not achieving something so readily achievable?"
For any to answer that question, would be to imply that they can account for the reasoning of everyone so inclined, which of course, is preposterous.
I can, however, speculate, and one possible reason could well be that they don't much care what others think, as might well be inferred by the fact that they, in this case at least, are already committing two societal faux pas, being atheists in the first place, and secondly, posting on an atheist website. If they're understood by the one with whom they're communicating, that, to them, is sufficient; if not, they realize they can always clarify, when called upon to do so - something on the order of, "Admittedly, however, my post was poorly written, so I apologize for my lack of clarity."
A second reason may well be that they don't like being told what to do by a person who may be sufficiently fortunate as to have been taught in their formative years, how to string a line of words together in such a way as to violate no arbitrary rules, by some authority figure who asserted there was only one correct way to express oneself in a fluid, ever-evolving language.
If poor language skills are readily fixable, then I can only hope that the trait of being overly concerned about poor language skills, may be as well.
And since, as you, yourself, have pointed out, we're just expressing opinions, you don't have to agree with mine, any more than I, with yours.
Actually, upon further thought, I've yet to agree with more than two or three of any of your comments. I find them to be highly critical the vast majority of the time. In fact, I'm reminded of the poem, or prose - depending on your viewpoint - of Dorothy Law Nolte, who wrote, "Children Learn What They Live," and in which she said, "If children live with criticism, they learn to condemn." Words to live by --
My message went walkabout
Some people choose other priorities - I am just lucky that I luv language - not real good at it - but I enjoy it - but there are also people, and I am not talking about those who are just lazy or lousy education - I am talking about people whose brains are wired differently. I am with a bloke, whose IQ would be twice mine - and he cannot spell - dictionaries and automatic corrections are his god - put me on a maths site, or for me to try and learn how to programme - Ha, couldn't do it if my life depended on it - horses for courses - I am not on twitter etc. I think this is where a lot of this shorthand is coming from - and it does my head in, when trying to work out what on earth they are talking about.
Knot shur wat U meen --
@Kris - There is always some really stupid tampering within the school system here. The thought was that children need to get their story across, without their essay coming back with red all over it. It was thought that would/could diminish a child's confidence????? I don't know how long it was enforced. Now they are doing away with cursive writing. Kids these days, would not know how to post, in a letter box, a hand written letter. Everything done by electronics, and so much is being lost. I am a worse speller now, than when I was younger. It is automatically 'fixed' - I remember as a kid, there were a couple of really bad stutterers around. It must have been so tedious and embarrassing for them. When a stutter or speech impediment is caught early, a life of misery can be avoided. It may be just under the surface, and come out again, as you say, when stressed or tired, but in the normal course of a day, it is all good, and the bullies don't get a shot at them.