"To" vs. "Too"

[Steve85]

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.