Re: BBC3 don't give a toss for views complacent about DOG
- From: "Ronnie Clark" <ronnie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 03:09:42 +0100
"Sean Huxter" <sean.huxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:_c5Te.1815$8i7.1622@xxxxxxxxxxx
> My problem is that I often type so fast I transpose letters. So "quite"
and
> "qiuet" are easy mistakes for me to make, but let's be clear. Those are
> typos. And I didn't proof the article sufficiently.
>
> My article was not talking about typos. It was talking about people who
> don't know the difference, and thinking it's perfectly acceptable to use
bad
> grammar and pretend it doesn't matter.
Typos are acceptable, as far as I'm concerned. They show only a lack of
proof-reading rather than a lack of understanding of the most basic
principles of the language. I think under the same umbrella can come missing
words (ie, brain thinks faster than the fingers can keep up with) or words
repeated in the wrong place (as I highlighted in your article, since they
tend to show only mistakes whilst rephrasing).
> Starting a sentence with "And" to me is natural, and I don't see it as a
> problem. It has its place. It's one of those rules that should only be
> broken, though, if you know the rules well enough to break them properly.
Or
> so a great writing teacher once told me. These days it's not really an
> issue.
And so what if it is shunned? I find it fine when used properly!
> People differ greatly on the abundance of commas. I tend to over-use them,
> but in reality they are used correctly, but my over-use is a little
> out-dated. These days sparse use of commmas is more acceptable, but I
prefer
> to use them at most normal conversational pauses. It's not incorrect, just
a
> little old-fashioned.
I've always come unstuck with commas. One thing that was drummed into us
back at high-school was how commas should be used a) where there is a
natural pause, b) to clear up any ambiguity when "and" is to follow, and c)
similar to parenthesis where a large section of a sentence could be edited
out without changing the grammatical structure of the remaining section, eg:
He went up the stairs to his bedroom.
He went up the stairs, which creaked under-foot as he climbed, to his
bedroom.
Trouble is, if you write a long in-depth sentence with plenty of descriptive
passages, such as that illustrated above, natural breaks, and the odd
"however" or two thrown in incase of emergencies, you end up with a sentence
that, whilst being a very dense piece of writing, and full of information,
is, however, over inhabited with commas, like this one. I suspect there is a
happy medium somewhere. Or I should, perhaps, use a semi-colon more often.
> I'm not so sure about the period after or before a close-bracket, though.
I
> believe that's cultural, and differs from the US and the UK. But I'll look
> into it. I think I'll go with this set of rules:
>
> 1) If the entire sentence is enclosed, such as: (Wow, that was special.)
> I'll put the period inside with the rest of the sentence. If, however, I
use
> the parentheses inside of a sentence, such as: He drove rather speedily
(as
> if the world was ending). I will put it outside.
Exactly how I view brackets. I often use in informal writing, such as text
messages, internet chat rooms, usenet postings, etc., brackets around a
sentence (including the full-stop) to indicate that the entire sentence is
of diminutive value. If, however, it is merely a diminutive part at the end
of a bigger sentence then the full-stop falls outside the brackets.
> But the main reason I'm replying here, is this: I've been posting on
usenet
> since 1985, and I don't know this one apparently basic fact. What the hell
> is TOP POSTING? Why is it shunned?
Top posting is the act of replying to a usenet post by placing your reply at
the top of the message, above that which you are replying to. It is shunned
by many as it defies normal logic of conversation, and does not allow
indepth replies to be written, because you are not replying to anything. In
this message, as well as yours which I'm replying to, each part of the
discussion is highlighted separately and replied to underneath, giving it an
easy to follow and understand conversation structure.
Whilst I don't agree with such dogmatic views that top posting is always
evil all of the time, I have noticed a general correlation between top
posted messages and a shortfall of intelligence of the poster. Perhaps this
is why they are shunned so much these days - it's not so much the act, but
that it's usually done by idiots.
The worst is when the top posting is done with no spaces between the reply
and the headers of the previous message. As many usenet users usually have
something 'witty' in their headers these days, one is in the habit of just
scrolling straight past any text at the top. There is nothing more annoying
that scrolling through a lengthy message, waiting to find something
dazzlingy important and clever added in reply (either interleved or
underneath), only to get to the bottom and find it was a top-posted message
with just a "Me too," added at the top with no space.
--
Ronnie (Me too!)
--
Have a great day...
....Have a Great Central day.
www.greatcentralrailway.com
.
- References:
- Re: BBC3 don't give a toss for views complacent about DOG
- From: Sean Huxter
- Re: BBC3 don't give a toss for views complacent about DOG
- From: Ronnie Clark
- Re: BBC3 don't give a toss for views complacent about DOG
- From: Glyn
- Re: BBC3 don't give a toss for views complacent about DOG
- From: Sean Huxter
- Re: BBC3 don't give a toss for views complacent about DOG
- Prev by Date: Re: emporer dalek (if you haven't seen the new series don't read this)
- Next by Date: Re: Here's A Thought
- Previous by thread: Re: BBC3 don't give a toss for views complacent about DOG
- Next by thread: Re: BBC3 don't give a toss for views complacent about DOG
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
