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.
There are people here, in this thread who are saying they're emotionally affected (e.g. disgusted) by careless writers. So it's not just "the poor writers'" problem.
"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?
On a practical level Kris, where would you draw the line?
If the site's moderators had to check every comment & post, the extra resources required would pose a problem of then funding those resources.
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.
do you consider your input valid? Yes?
I need clarification on this sentence because I am unable to decipher it.
"Likewise, evolutions in language have be better at expressing thoughts."
Sorry, but isn't this what the OP is talking about?