+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: "To" vs. "Too" (/showthread.php?tid=10095)
Re: "To" vs. "Too" - Tyler.M - 11-30-2012
Evan Wrote:so because you can nitpick a normal sentence into being grammatically incorrect by technicality, that means all criticisms of grammar are invalid?
let me put your logical fallacy another way: when you break the law driving 3mph over the speed limit, its ok for me to break the law and shoot you in the head.
What? No. You misunderstand. What I'm saying is that by focusing on a single mistake, you miss the entire point of what the person is trying to say, and then blame them for it because you can't stop focusing on it. Thus, you end up losing the entire point because your attention is diverted away from the substance and is focused only on the style. You call the author someone who is "uneducated", when in reality the author is providing you with a form of communication, yet you fail to understand because your stylistic doucebaggery prevents you from communicating effectively. Grammar criticism isn't invalid. It just shouldn't be a barrier to the very act of communication. Once you begin to block communication, you lose sight of why the words (and as such the grammar) exist in the first place.
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about in your counter "logical fallacy" example, but if I'm *partially* understanding what you're saying, my response would be that by focusing only on grammar and not substance, you miss the forest for the trees. I think. I'm not sure what capital punishment for speeding has to do with grammar. What would be more acceptable is Rex's lane changing metaphor on courtesy, but slightly different. A grammar Nazi would see a person not using their turn signal, freak the hell out, slam into their car, force them into the medium and then blame the lazy lane changer that it was their fault even though the Nazi was the one who really caused the accident and stopped the entire fucking interstate for 45 miles in 100 degree weather. Now THAT is a better allegory to what we're talking about here. (Because, you know, the driving is like communication? And the lane signal is like a rule within the greater concept of the communication occurring? But then, the lane changer doesn't turn his/her signal on but the lane change happens anyways? So you know, then Nazi prevents any further communication by being a dumbshit and causing all of the communication (driving) to cease, undermining the Nazi's own travel plans to the Fatherland and ruining everyone's day instead of just letting it go? Yeah. Like that. Just making sure we're all on the same page here.)
Apoc Wrote:Sorry to inform you Mike, but it appears JMU English majors suck at writing too.
See, you limit your definition of what "makes a good writer" as someone that uses perfect written grammar. I really hope this isn't completely the case. Under your definition, any grade school student particularly gifted with a knack for following grammar rules is instantly better than someone like William Faulkner that uses a stream of consciousness style that generally disregards any type of punctuation/grammar/whateverthefuck, or any number of authors that has published volumes of work that have consumed the ink of many innocent red pens. It would be hard to argue that little Johnny in the 5th grade is a better writer than Faulkner...but as you've described as the reasoning for my "suck(ing) at writing)" that's about what you've said. "Good" writing to you is not so much the actual substance, it's the style. Thus, you are a similar individual as a grammar Nazi. I'll call you a Nazi compatriot. Have fun reading grammatically perfect technical pamphlets for the rest of your life: It sounds fascinating.
Short response is: You believe I "suck at writing" because you refuse to understand substance when presented in an imperfect style. Congratulations on being elitist grammaticians. I'm sure your lives are with unlimited excitement and you have a plethora of friends. :thumbup:
Re: "To" vs. "Too" - Apoc - 11-30-2012
Tyler.M Wrote:What I'm saying is that by focusing on a single mistake, you miss the entire point of what the person is trying to say, and then blame them for it because you can't stop focusing on it. Thus, you end up losing the entire point because your attention is diverted away from the substance and is focused only on the style.
Translation: "It's your problem you take exception to my laziness and/or mistakes, so I don't have to worry about it."
What was that about being elitist?
What about someone texting or talking in a movie theater? Is it everyone else's problem because they can't ignore it and enjoy themselves? What if I'm talking with my mouth full? Is it my responsibility to look past that as long as I can understand what they're saying? Not caring enough to construct a proper sentence is akin to talking with your mouth full. It's damaging to your argument and it's inconsiderate.
What a lot of people fail to realize is that all of life is an interview. Given two people asking around for a job, even informally, who do you think is more likely to get a referral or recommendation?
Re: "To" vs. "Too" - Mike - 11-30-2012
Tyler.M Wrote:TLR?
Nah, I read it. I used to think I was really clever when I was in college too. I was wrong. I'm smarter now, but still not all that smart. You should attend more classes on logic. I highly recommend this guy.
In very rare cases is a failure to grasp basic grammar not indicative of overall intelligence. In such cases, those people are SMART AS FUCK. Nobody on this message board falls into that category.
"To" vs. "Too" - JPolen01 - 11-30-2012
You guys are all a bunch of knobs. Get over the fact that you are on an Internet forum and people don't use perfect grammar. Boohoo. No one is devaluing your résumé. That line actually made me laugh.
Re: "To" vs. "Too" - SlimKlim - 11-30-2012
Well this thread isn't fun anymore.
I think Tyler makes a good point here.
Tyler.M Wrote:Evan Wrote:A grammar Nazi would see a person not using their turn signal, freak the hell out, slam into their car, force them into the medium and then blame the lazy lane changer that it was their fault even though the Nazi was the one who really caused the accident and stopped the entire fucking interstate for 45 miles in 100 degree weather. Now THAT is a better allegory to what we're talking about here. (Because, you know, the driving is like communication? And the lane signal is like a rule within the greater concept of the communication occurring?
I don't think he's being anymore of an uppity know-it-all than the rest of us, don't put him in the shitter just because he's still in school. Are neither of you willing to consider the possibility that screaming at someone online because their finger hit the "o" key an extra time is a little more disruptive to the discourse than the original typo?
Anything more formal than a forum, reddit, or facebook deserves some copyediting, but I don't understand the point in getting blue in the face over a typo or two, when the offending person generally has good syntax and diction. :dunno:
Re: - Mike - 11-30-2012
JPolen01 Wrote:No one is devaluing your résumé. That line actually made me laugh.
You're missing the point. No, I'm not hiring anyone on here. Yes, they might correspond with a prospective employer one day. If they make these errors, they might get dismissed, as they would if I were hiring them (the point being that I'm likely not alone in how seriously I take this).
Also of note, I work in quality assurance. It's imperative that people I hire give a fuck and at all times.
Re: "To" vs. "Too" - Ken - 11-30-2012
Apoc Wrote:What about someone texting or talking in a movie theater? Is it everyone else's problem because they can't ignore it and enjoy themselves? What if I'm talking with my mouth full? Is it my responsibility to look past that as long as I can understand what they're saying? Not caring enough to construct a proper sentence is akin to talking with your mouth full. It's damaging to your argument and it's inconsiderate.
What a lot of people fail to realize is that all of life is an interview. Given two people asking around for a job, even informally, who do you think is more likely to get a referral or recommendation?
The mistakes we WERE discussing were more along the lines of the title, "to and too" and would not qualify as mistakes you would notice when someone was speaking. I would therefore think that the mistakes Mike saw would probably not disqualify whoever the offenders were from being intelligent in normal speaking. So I don't think your last point, while it is valid, applies in this case. It's also just as likely that those offenders probably know well enough to double check their shit when in the proper setting, the Madison Motorsports forum? Probably not on the list of double-checking. I'm sure, if someone had enough time, we could find posts from everyone on here where there were grammatical errors.
Re: "To" vs. "Too" - JustinG - 11-30-2012
This thread sucks.......moving along....
Re: "To" vs. "Too" - WRXtranceformed - 11-30-2012
Mike Wrote:Nobody on this message board falls into that category.Speak for yourself
If my grammar is poor or my spelling is off, it's usually just because I am flat out too lazy to correct it...especially with text messages. Less of an intelligence issue, more of a laziness issue.
Re: "To" vs. "Too" - Dave - 11-30-2012
The point is, shitty spelling demonstrates a shitty metality. It does represent you as a person, and everybody needs to recognize that spending 5 extra seconds proofreading something can make the difference between seeming like an intelligent person vs. a drooling moron.
The assumption that "Oh, they pay attention when it counts." really doesn't apply. People get comfortable in their job, and then they revert right back to being sloppy b/c it isn't a resume so it "doesn't count". Myself and my team were completely embarassed in an application review recently b/c our PM is too lazy and stupid to recognize a misspelled name on the title of a report (name of major company related to an expensive contract we had JUST won). It was a personal report that was only available to him in the application, and thus there was no opportunity to correct beforehand,and it made us ALL look like idiots. People like him are what Mike is trying to combat here, and impress upon everybody that it DOES count, all the time.
Re: "To" vs. "Too" - JustinG - 11-30-2012
Dave Wrote:The point is, shitty spelling demonstrates a shitty metality.
Sorry, I had to/too/two/2
Re: "To" vs. "Too" - Ken - 11-30-2012
Dave Wrote:The point is, shitty spelling demonstrates a shitty metality. It does represent you as a person, and everybody needs to recognize that spending 5 extra seconds proofreading something can make the difference between seeming like an intelligent person vs. a drooling moron.
The assumption that "Oh, they pay attention when it counts." really doesn't apply. People get comfortable in their job, and then they revert right back to being sloppy b/c it isn't a resume so it "doesn't count". Myself and my team were completely embarassed in an application review recently b/c our PM is too lazy and stupid to recognize a misspelled name on the title of a report (name of major company related to an expensive contract we had JUST won). It was a personal report that was only available to him in the application, and thus there was no opportunity to correct beforehand,and it made us ALL look like idiots. People like him are what Mike is trying to combat here, and impress upon everybody that it DOES count, all the time.
Ahh I see, so just because i may have written something poorly once or twice on here (an internet forum amongst friends), I must be an idiot and will make that error in a more professional setting.
Totally logical.
Re: "To" vs. "Too" - Ken - 11-30-2012
JustinG Wrote:Dave Wrote:The point is, shitty spelling demonstrates a shitty metality.
Sorry, I had to/too/two/2
Clearly just passed the blame on the poor PM.
Re: "To" vs. "Too" - Jake - 11-30-2012
Say what you will, but I'm with Dave and Mikey on this entire topic. And yes, I proof my forum posts. It takes such a minute amount of extra time to do, so why not?
I'm also in an editorial line of work, so 99% of the people I work with have a very good grasp of the basics of English. Maybe that's different elsewhere. I just hate seeing the excuse of "oh, I'm too lazy and it's just a forum" for missing punctuation. Occasional misspellings, fine. The whole world makes typos. But when you consistently fail to put apostrophes where they belong, or mis-use they're/their/there, and so on, I would agree that it reflects poorly on you.
Re: "To" vs. "Too" - Dave - 11-30-2012
Ken Wrote:That's hilarious. I'll own that, there's no GOOD excuse for why it happened - I should have double checked it again before submitting.JustinG Wrote:Dave Wrote:The point is, shitty spelling demonstrates a shitty metality.
Sorry, I had to/too/two/2
Clearly just passed the blame on the poor PM.
I literally just walked out of another Sprint Review where the same PM made 2 new typos and our COO gave us the look of shame (PM doesn't work in our office). Oh the irony that we're talking about it here.
Ken Wrote:Way to exaggerate it and run with it. Rarely <> daily/constantly and should be treated as such; I may be in the minority, but I try not to judge people until they've proven themselves of a trait consistently.Dave Wrote:Stuff I said.
Ahh I see, so just because i may have written something poorly once or twice on here (an internet forum amongst friends), I must be an idiot and will make that error in a more professional setting.
Totally logical.
Soooo, yes, if you cannot grasp basics and constantly make stupid errors in a relaxed forum, I will bet money that you'll do it in a professional setting too (hopefully with a lower frequency though).
Re: "To" vs. "Too" - WRXtranceformed - 11-30-2012
To play devil's advocate, and I am not exaggerating here, probably 70% of the senior leadership (including the C suite) that I work with at most of the Fortune 1000 companies in the southeast spell, punctuate and compose emails like 3rd graders. I am not even kidding. Good thing spelling and grammar don't mean much when you are the one running the show.
Re: "To" vs. "Too" - Ken - 11-30-2012
Dave Wrote:Way to exaggerate it and run with it; you'll do well in the press. Rarely <> daily/constantly and should be treated as such; I may be in the minority, but I try not to judge people until they've proven themselves of a trait consistently.
Soooo, yes, if you cannot grasp basics and constantly make stupid errors in a relaxed forum, I will bet money that you'll do it in a professional setting too (hopefully with a lower frequency though).
Sorry, just seems like you guys are making the same exaggeration of someone's intelligence based on their writing so i went to an extreme as well.
That's essentially the point i was making, it's all matter of circumstance and frequency. Do i think you're an idiot for your mistake? No. Was it a hilarious* (made my own mistake, lol) example of poor timing? Absolutely. We can't all be perfect all the time, especially in settings where we SHOULD feel more relaxed.
Re: "To" vs. "Too" - Steve85 - 11-30-2012
Dave Wrote:The point is, shitty spelling demonstrates a shitty metality. It does represent you as a person, and everybody needs to recognize that spending 5 extra seconds proofreading something can make the difference between seeming like an intelligent person vs. a drooling moron.
The assumption that "Oh, they pay attention when it counts." really doesn't apply. People get comfortable in their job, and then they revert right back to being sloppy b/c it isn't a resume so it "doesn't count". Myself and my team were completely embarassed in an application review recently b/c our PM is too lazy and stupid to recognize a misspelled name on the title of a report (name of major company related to an expensive contract we had JUST won). It was a personal report that was only available to him in the application, and thus there was no opportunity to correct beforehand,and it made us ALL look like idiots. People like him are what Mike is trying to combat here, and impress upon everybody that it DOES count, all the time.
I know how your team felt because I used context to understand your message.
Typing the wrong word is often a subconcious mistake. Even with proofreading, some mistakes will not be found, the reason good QA uses more than 1 set of "eyes".
embarassed vs embarassed doesn't seem like a big deal because the word "embarassed" doesn't exist, there is no assumption you used the wrong word. It is the same mistake as "to" and "too". Could be a typo, and not wrong word. Especially if someone has typed "to" several times preceding the need to use "too". Or in a paragraph containing several their/they're/there, not hard to subconsciously type the wrong one.
And as we can see, even the most adamant can miss things sometimes.
Re: "To" vs. "Too" - SlimKlim - 11-30-2012
WRXtranceformed Wrote:To play devil's advocate, and I am not exaggerating here, probably 70% of the senior leadership (including the C suite) that I work with at most of the Fortune 1000 companies in the southeast spell, punctuate and compose emails like 3rd graders. I am not even kidding. Good thing spelling and grammar don't mean much when you are the one running the show.
Seriously. Emails I see from senior management and executives making well over $300k/yr tend to be stream of consciousness train wrecks, emails from interns are written like a formal thesis.
Re: "To" vs. "Too" - Dave - 11-30-2012
Steve85 Wrote:I know how your team felt because I used context to understand your message.
Typing the wrong word is often a subconcious mistake. Even with proofreading, some mistakes will not be found, the reason good QA uses more than 1 set of "eyes".
embarassed vs embarassed doesn't seem like a big deal because the word "embarassed" doesn't exist, there is no assumption you used the wrong word. It is the same mistake as "to" and "too". Could be a typo, and not wrong word. Especially if someone has typed "to" several times preceding the need to use "too". Or in a paragraph containing several their/they're/there, not hard to subconsciously type the wrong one.
And as we can see, even the most adamant can miss things sometimes.
I guess neither of us know how to spell embarrassed :lol:
The biggest difference that I think exists here though is a matter of caring. I am mad at myself that I misspelled mentality and embarrassed, two commonplace words that are not hard to remember or spell correctly. I could care less that I got "caught" (although I never would have known the difference, so there is that...), but rather I actually care that I made the mistake. The frustrating part is that there are many people out there (and I think that number of people is growing) who could give a rat's ass about any typo, and think it's perfectly ok.
And now, I'm going to stop responding to this thread - since apparently I'm cursed in here.
P.S. If we could get some spellcheck up in this bitch, I wouldn't have made an ass of myself...
