Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ccieng2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!ccieng2!kfk
From: kfk@ccieng2.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Literacy
Message-ID: <116@ccieng2.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Feb-84 11:32:31 EST
Article-I.D.: ccieng2.116
Posted: Mon Feb 13 11:32:31 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Feb-84 06:25:45 EST
Organization: Computer Consoles Inc., Rochester, NY
Lines: 60

----------
	From ihuxq!ken Tue Feb  7 14:49:21 1984
	Subject: Literacy

	Oh, about a month ago, I plunged into the grammar debate with the
	battle cry, "If you can't write it right, you can't think it right."
	Our friend jj took this personally for some reason, and the two of
	us went a few rounds, which was fun.  Soon thereafter, some twit
	posted something to the effect of "Ha-ha-ha, that's bad grammar--the
	proper statement is 'if you can't write it *correctly*...'" with
	some irrelevant ramblings about adjectives and adverbs.

	I didn't respond, since if said twit could not comprehend the
	not at all subtle difference in meaning between "do it right" and
	"do it correctly", there was little hope of any rational interchange.
----------
I wrote that article, Ken.  The statement still contains bad grammar.  You
wished to modify the verb "write," and that requires use of an adverb.  The
reason I responded is because you took it upon yourself to flame with quite
some vigor about the rather poor quality of writing with which we must deal
on this network.  You finished your article with this large statement, all
capitalized, highlighted with asterisks.

As far as your quote from Richard Mitchell is concerned, I understand exact-
ly what you were trying to say when you complained about the quality of the
average article on the usenet, and I applaud your attempt to convince people
that they need to be more careful with their use of the language.  I know
what you *meant* when you said that we should "write it right."  However,
the mechanics are still important.  Your mechanics were insufficiently used
in that vehement objection of yours.  Further, Mr. Mitchell evidently doesn't
think that "writing it right" is all that important, as long as meaning is
clear, and he advocates that people who are well-versed in the written language
should be allowed much leeway; so it is contradictory for you to cite him as
a supporting source when your own position claims that one must formulate
one's written words correctly.

(I hold the opposing viewpoint on those who are well-versed:  If you are a
master with the language, then you have the responsibility to be even more
careful.  Your writings will be read by those less gifted than yourself, and,
hence, mechanics become even more important.)

I have no objection whatsoever to your desire that the quality of writing
should be higher, and, in fact, I have flamed a number of people through the
mail about poor writing.  (I generally reserve such flames for truly bad
writing; most writing on the net is understandable, if poorly constructed.)
The reason I pointed it out, which I explained was not intended to detract
from the desire for better writing (a fact which escaped you completely),
was that I think it is most inappropriate for someone to flame about other
people's poor writing and then become a party to the crime himself.

I agree entirely: the quality of writing on the net is quite poor.  But
that doesn't mean that you get a special license to commit the same offenses
yourself when you get upset about the situation.

P.S.  I do not really wish to start up the grammar/literacy argument again.
But I felt it was necessary to point out these facts a second time, since
the complaint was made a second time.
-- 
Karl Kleinpaste
...![ [seismo, allegra]!rochester!ritcv, rlgvax]!ccieng5!ccieng2!kfk