Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.14 $; site uiucdcs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!renner From: renner@uiucdcs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Minor Catharsis Message-ID: <36200151@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 26-Sep-84 16:10:00 EDT Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.36200151 Posted: Wed Sep 26 16:10:00 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 28-Sep-84 04:33:50 EDT References: <319@ihu1e.UUCP> Lines: 22 Nf-ID: #R:ihu1e:-31900:uiucdcs:36200151:000:1152 Nf-From: uiucdcs!renner Sep 26 15:10:00 1984 > This flame is for all you nitpicking arrogant assholes that can't read > an article without first checking it for the correct use of "its/it's", > "your/you're", "there/their/they're" and other homonyms. It's also for > all the obviously bored argumentative pricks that read a serious > article on a serious topic and then flame the author because a word was > misspelled or a comma was in the wrong place. The goal of an author is to communicate some idea or ideas to the reader. A neatly formatted, correctly spelled, and properly punctuated article aids in achieving this goal because it is easier to read and understand. A sloppy article implies either that the author does not care if his article is understood, or that he does not think his ideas are worth the extra trouble that neatness would require. The desire for neatness can be taken too far. It is clearly out of place to flame an author for the occasional misspelled word. But it is also unreasonable to expect others to read an article "for content" when the author insists in hiding his content in mounds of horrible writing. Scott Renner ...ihnp4!uiucdcs!renner