For wfaulk and the rest of us...

For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 04/03/2003 23:16

Here is a tool that will put a spell check into your right-click menu. It will not cure us from using "it's" instead of "its" or "your" instead of "you're" but it's a start.

http://www.lurkhere.com/~nicefiles/spellcheck.zip

And I do mean this with all due respect. I'm glad that someone has consistantly kept us up to standard. (Can you tell I havn't installed this tool yet?)

Posted by: genixia

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 04/03/2003 23:32

(Can you tell I havn't installed this tool yet?)

No kidding?!

Posted by: ricin

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 01:13

Atomica Slingshot is great for this sort of thing. It took me forever to remember what it was called, as I haven't used it in a few months, and they've changed from GuruNet to Atomica, then to Slingshot (although keeping the Atomica name). Anyway, the free version lets you use the dictionary, spell check, thesaurus, acronym, and encyclopedia. Quite handy. Not to mention the full, paid version has many more features.

I now have it re-installed.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 08:26

For wfaulk ... Here is a tool that will put a spell check into your right-click menu
This assumes that

I'm using Windows (rarely true)
When using Windows, I'm using IE (also rarely true)
I need an automated spelling checker (never true! )

Actually, I use OmniWeb most of the time, and it has a built-in check-as-you-go spell checker that requires no external interface. It's quite nice. But, of course, with all the jargon and abbreviations used in places like this, much of my posts are underlined in red, anyway, and I have to ignore it.

Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 08:55

I wasn't implying that you'd use the tool yourself. I can't imagine that you'd need it. I just thought it'd make reading posts less painful for you.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 09:00

Aha! Good point!

Posted by: simspos

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 09:26

Phew,.... war has been averted

Posted by: tfabris

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 11:43

Tom actually added a link to IEspell in the main BBS FAQ a long time ago...

Posted by: tonyc

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 11:55

I think all the kvetching that's done about grammar and spelling is unnecessary, and borders on elitism. Some people who come to the board don't even speak English as their native language. Even when that's not the case, there are others who are simply bad spellers, or do not exhibit perfect grammar. I'd personally rather have their comments here, bad spelling and all, than have them leave because they feel slighted by people who are correcting them constantly.

It's not like you don't get the message when someone misspells a word or uses poor grammar, and if it's so horribly unreadable, then you can just skip to the next message. Correcting someone here isn't going to suddenly make their spelling/grammar any better, and just adds to the noise of the BBS. I myself have sometimes found some of the grammatical mistakes funny, but there are far too many times where we're picking on people for tiny spelling/grammar mistakes, and it just gets old.

Maybe I'm just in a bad mood today, but do we REALLY need people to run a spell checker for BBS posts?

Posted by: lectric

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 12:07

I personally read every post I make to verify that there are no spelling errors in them. It just bugs me. I don't mind reading other people's mistakes, I just don't like to make them. There's just something that makes me cringe when I see an error on paper, as it were.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 12:08

I'd personally rather have their comments here, bad spelling and all, than have them leave because they feel slighted by people who are correcting them constantly.
I thought that all talk about grammar and spelling on this BBS has been intended as good, clean fun. I would hope that no one feels slighted by it.

Posted by: Roger

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 12:09

but do we REALLY need people to run a spell checker for BBS posts?

Yes.

Poor spelling and grammar should not be excused. This just leads to laziness.

If English is not someone's first language, then I'll let it slide, although I'd hope that the person would be amenable to (subtle) corrections, in the interests of learning English. If I posted to a French BBS (which I don't), I know I'd appreciate being (gently) corrected.

Besides, most of the people on this BBS who have don't English as their first language seem to have better spelling and grammar than those of us who do.

Typos are forgivable, to a point; but does it really take that long to proof-read a post?

Dyslexia or similar are another problem. I'd let that slide.

Poor grammar, on the other hand, can often lead to a post being unreadable. In this case, gently asking the OP to clarify what they've written can lead to two favourable outcomes: the readers understand what's being asked/said, and the OP (hopefully) learns something.

Also, consider this:

A post is written once, but read many times. Would it not be better for everyone if it was proof-read once by the author, rather than multiple times by the readers.

Gently correcting spelling and grammar is a good thing. There is (certainly) a time and a place for it. I'd argue that the BBS is as good a place as any other, as long as the corrections are gentle and don't cause offence.

I don't think that anybody on this BBS has been/would be harsh when pointing out mistakes. There are usually subtle ways to draw attention to an error and gently correct it without pointing fun at the original poster (I've outlined a couple above).

Remember that people come here for help. They can reach a wider audience if their posts are correctly spelt and are understandable, otherwise most people just skip to the next post.

Posted by: tonyc

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 12:11

I thought that all talk about grammar and spelling on this BBS has been intended as good, clean fun. I would hope that no one feels slighted by it.

I've seen examples of both, and some which were probably somewhere in between. I would also hope that nobody takes any of it personally, but that's not my judgement to make. Which is why I think we should let more of it go rather than crusading for perfect spelling and grammar.

Unless it's a funny Freudian slip or something. Then, by all means.

Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 12:12

I'm trying to dig up the thread from at least a year back when this was first brought up. I thought it was one of the best we had here and Bitt went out of his way to clarify that he wasn't being elitist and many of us commented that we liked to be kept on our toes a bit. The only time that anyone has been asked to be more clear is when they spit out 4 word posts asking for help.

I remember after reading that thread, I felt even more pride in being a part of this BBS.

Posted by: revlmwest

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 12:12

I agree... it's more an attempt at personal excellence than of judging someone else. I don't remember anyone correcting the grammar of someone that doesn't speak English well.
This also brings up an interesting point. How long will it take before the grammar found in email, chat rooms, and forums becomes accepted in other media. Or a different angle, if we don't use proper english online why use it offline?

Posted by: Roger

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 12:13

there are others who are simply bad spellers, or do not exhibit perfect grammar

And this is excusable why?

they feel slighted

This is a different problem -- either the person takes offence easily, in which case they should just get over themselves -- or the person doing the correction wasn't careful enough to avoid offence, in which case they need to be reminded to be more polite.

picking on people

It never comes across to me as 'picking on people'. Maybe I need to be reminded to be more polite?

Posted by: tonyc

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 12:25

And this is excusable why?

Because not everyone on this BBS is as educated or naturally intelligent as everyone else on the BBS, and I would prefer that peoples' ideas were reflected here regardless of how well they did in English class. People don't come here to have their spelling/grammar coached. They come here to talk about the empeg, and sometimes in this particular forum, to discuss other things.

At the end of the day, I agree that a person out in the real world is going to be judged on the basis of their communication skills. But on the BBS, I see the correcting of minor mistakes as more nit-picking than it is actually trying to help someone else. You seem to think it's the latter, so I guess we just interpret it differently.

I am not saying this is an epidemic, but I have seen examples where I thought it was more than a "gentle" correction. I've seen other forums (and in my distant past, dialup BBSes) gang up on users with less-than-perfect use of English and scare them away. Now, most of us are nice, agreeable people, but this topic seems to come up a lot, even on minor offenses.

And, to be honest, the rules of English grammar are obscenely complicated to begin with, and I think that a lot of the "mistakes" people make which sneak their way into the langauge are just a natural part of the evolution of the language itself.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 12:30

I agree that grammar and spelling are both important, though not to the point of being nasty. I’m sure I’ve written plenty of things here that have had misspellings or grammar mistakes, but I also feel that I’ve put forth enough effort that others can see I take what I say seriously. If what we are trying to do here is communicate with others (and I can think of no other reason for a BBS), then it behooves us put forth a reasonable amount of effort into being clear about what we say. I believe it is a mark of respect to others when we take the time to make our words as readable as possible.

Posted by: lectric

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 12:30

I go, you go, he goes, they go?!?! Who made THAT rule up?

Posted by: drakino

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 12:31

Correcting someone here isn't going to suddenly make their spelling/grammar any better

Actually, because of Bitt correcting my use of "it's" once, I find myself paying attention to its proper use.

I personally never intend to add a mandatory spell checker to the board. Anything server side becomes annoyning and useless. Client side spell checking is the way to go for those that wish to use it. I'm still hoping that Chimera or Safari gets around to implementing the type as you go checking soon, as I prefer either of them over OmniWeb due to tabbed browsing.

Posted by: tonyc

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 12:32

How long will it take before the grammar found in email, chat rooms, and forums becomes accepted in other media. Or a different angle, if we don't use proper english online why use it offline?

So what if it does? Languages evolve. Is that bad?

I mean, I don't think that newspaper columnists will ever be typing things like:

"/me agrees with the President"

or

"IWBNI Alan Greenspan reduced interest rates, cuz I'm broke, yo."

But colloquialisms creep into common use all the time. The Internet has its own jargon, and some of those things will find their way into the language over time too. What's so terrible about that?

Posted by: blitz

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 12:34

Amin!

Posted by: butter

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 12:37

It has begun.

Posted by: revlmwest

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 12:46

In reply to:
But colloquialisms creep into common use all the time. The Internet has its own jargon, and some of those things will find their way into the language over time too. What's so terrible about that?

Colloquialisms are fine and they do creep into languages all the time. They creep in even with rather strict enforcement and education dealing with language norms. On the internet, outside of a handful of forums like this one, there is little enforcement at all of rules of grammar. (At least without the flaming you mentioned above which is usually more about meanness than grammar.) The open acceptance of radically altered grammar could serve as a catalyst to this change. Since the grammatical and spelling changes normal to the internet are largely utilitarian, it would in my opinion greatly vandalize what is capable of beauty.

By the way, my spell check caught 3 misspelled words in this post.

Posted by: tonyc

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 12:49

I dunno, I'm not here on a crusade against proper grammar. I just think people need to focus more on the message and less on the vehicle. Since there are very few times when the vehicle (the spelling/grammar) is so broken that the message doesn't come across.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 12:50

I think the issue the Rev is trying to address is one of laziness, not language. I’ve already noticed people tend to write things to me in emails that they wouldn’t write in personal letters. I don’t know why this is, but when it comes to electronic messaging people begin to feel taking the time to write “properly” isn’t necessary anymore. For people who don’t have language skills, I’ll agree that they shouldn’t be held up to as high a standard as those who do. However, for people who do possess the skills and simply don’t take the time to use them, this can easily lead to the use of “lazy” language in other, non-electronic mediums.

While I understand your argument that this is simply language evolution, I don’t agree. Though some grammar rules seem useless, there are others that exist for very good reasons: to bring clarity to what you say. Certainly spelling is one of these, and I can say that by practicing good spelling in everything I write (electronic or not) my spelling has definitely improved. Still, spelling is often ignored in electronic messaging and it is no great stretch to see how this “laziness” can impact communication in other mediums.

Posted by: Roger

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 12:59

I would prefer that peoples' ideas were reflected here regardless of how well they did in English class.

As would I. However, as FerretBoy says, if people are trying to communicate effectively, they should put a certain amount of effort into what they write.

Now, on this BBS, I've rarely had a problem understanding what someone has posted, and when I have, some gentle prompting usually allows me to understand them.

I guess that it simply irritates me when people are willing to excuse poor grammar when it's caused through laziness, rather than through lack of education/experience.

I guess we just interpret it differently.

I guess we do. I've not perceived an appreciable amount of nit-picking. You have. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

the rules of English grammar are obscenely complicated to begin with

So are the rules of cricket, but if you want to play...

Hey, I don't know. Maybe I should have been born French, then I could have aspired to the Academie Francais

Posted by: Roger

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 13:00

other mediums

...other media?

Posted by: tonyc

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 13:02

Maybe I should have been born French, then I could have aspired to the Academie Francais

You mean l'Academie Français, right?

Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 13:04

sPe11iNg sU><orS

Posted by: lectric

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 13:06

the rules of English grammar are obscenely complicated to begin with

So are the rules of cricket, but if you want to play...

Wow... I need to write that one down somewhere. Clever.

Posted by: loren

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 13:09

weeeerd

Posted by: blitz

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 13:11

So are the rules of cricket

Like this?

Posted by: tfabris

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 13:16

And this is excusable why?
Because not everyone on this BBS is as educated or naturally intelligent as everyone else on the BBS,
Ah, now this puts me in mind of an argument for good grammar. I think this applies to the internet in general...

Here on the BBS, our words are the only thing that others see about "us", about who we are. They don't see our demeanor, they don't hear our voices, they can't see what we're really like. All they see is the words.

So, when someone writes with poor grammar, it gives us a "first impression" of lack-of-education and/or lack-of-intelligence. Even though neither of those things is necessarily related to grammar. There was one BBS user who simply typed very fast and didn't bother to correct typos. Then I got a chance to meet him in person, and he was very intelligent and well educated.

It's even harder for people with English as a second language. When reading messages from a non-english speaker, I have to deliberately try to overcome that "first impression". It has to be a conscious effort, or I slip into judging them on their command of the English language.

Technology has allowed us to connect to people across great distances. Now we need to learn how it colors our perceptions of others...

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 13:40

Safari has tabs?

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 13:54

Since I have a huge and obvious bias, I'm mostly going to just stay out of this one, but I'd like to point your attention to the extreme opposite bias: Free Speling.

And my one comment against it: ``speling'' would be pronounced as ``speeling'', as it would be a gerund of the verb ``to spele'', English words usually have very straightforward rules for spelling and pronunciation; mostly only the words imported from elsewhere have odd spellings or pronunciations (depending on which way you look at it). Unfortunately, those words are not few.

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 14:21

There was one BBS user who simply typed very fast and didn't bother to correct typos. Then I got a chance to meet him in person, and he was very intelligent and well educated.

Ah! HighWayDrifter... haven't heard from him in about two and a half years now. Suffered from something called "finger agnosia", making his typed efforts difficult to decipher.

Isn't it scary that I would remember this stuff?

tanstaafl.

Posted by: drakino

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 16:33

Safari has tabs?

It will shortly. Leaked betas have it, once enabled via the debug menu. Initial implementation still lacks a way of opening a new tab via a simple middle click, but I haven't sug around for a newer beta.

Posted by: Roger

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 05/03/2003 16:35

While we're talking about pie...

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 06/03/2003 00:26

the rules of English grammar are obscenely complicated to begin with

So are the rules of cricket,

The rules may be complicated, but the game is easy to explain:

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in.

Each man that's in the side that's in goes out and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out.

When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out.

Sometimes you get men still in and not out.

When both sides have been in and out including the not outs, that's the end of the game.

Posted by: Daria

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 06/03/2003 01:29

And, to be honest, the rules of English grammar are obscenely complicated to begin with, and I think that a lot of the "mistakes" people make which sneak their way into the langauge are just a natural part of the evolution of the language itself.

English is a horrible language to be the "language of the internet". It's worked well for me, but I recognize the sheer nastiness of it.

Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 06/03/2003 06:30

English is a horrible language to be the "language of the internet". It's worked well for me, but I recognize the sheer nastiness of it.

Yes...I agree. I firmly believe that we should all switch to PERL.

Posted by: revlmwest

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 06/03/2003 09:04

In reply to:
And, to be honest, the rules of English grammar are obscenely complicated to begin with

In relation to what? Mandarin or Tamil? Every language that isn't your native tongue seems complicated. In fact your own seems complicated if you actually think about it too hard. It's a lot like playing NightFire on the PS2 or typing this message, if I actually think about each keystroke and button press I'd never get anywhere. Languages have to be some what complicated based on the complexity of what they are created for and the length of time for which they are used.

Posted by: 753

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 06/03/2003 10:00

Beeing one of the non-native english speakers on this BBS, I feel the need to state that I would not mind at all if I were corrected and gently (or even not so gently, I can take quite a bit

) pushed in the right direction. In fact it's a couple of years ago that I was taught the rules of english grammar. The use of the language has become somewhat automatic, just like Reverend Michael West describes.
However, as soon as one starts to use a language naturally(with which I mean thinking in the other language rather than modelling a sentence in your native language and then translating it), one starts to develop bad habits, that are hard to get rid of... even harder if you don't know about them. I havn't used a spell checker until now(which will change in the near future), but I did proof-read my posts. I do realize that correcting every one of my mistakes would be a full time job and I agree with _ynot's point that it would seriously contribute to the noise level.
But beeing told about unbearable faux pas, would surely have positive impact on my future posts.

Oh, and as a side note ... I found French grammar to be much more complex than the english equivalent.

EDIT: Typo

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 06/03/2003 10:14

I've altogether been mightily impressed with the English skill of almost all of the people on this board who profess not to speak English natively, yourself included. In fact, it is all but perfect.

Contrasting you guys with the non-native English speakers I deal with on a regular basis (Chinese, Korean, Russan, various Arabs) in my job as a computer guy, who, for the most part, live in the US and spend most of their day speaking English, is like comparing William Safire to a doorknob. Actually, you're better than most of the native English speakers I deal with.

I found French grammar to be much more complex than the english equivalent.
Burn!

France surrenders.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 06/03/2003 21:30

I firmly believe that we should all switch to PERL.

You do mean Perl, don't you?

> perldoc -q '"perl" and "perl"'
Found in /usr/lib/perl5/5.6.0/pod/perlfaq1.pod
What's the difference between ""perl"" and ""Perl""?

One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now
uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the
implementation of it, i.e. the current interpreter. Hence
Tom's quip that "Nothing but perl can parse Perl." You
may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example,
parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl"
look OK, while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do
not. But never write "PERL", because perl isn't really an
acronym, apocryphal folklore and post-facto expansions
notwithstanding.

(This *is* a thread about gently correcting, right?)

Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 07/03/2003 09:29

Yeah...I suppose the Practical Extraction and Report Language acronym no longer really applies.

I stand corrected.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 07/03/2003 11:56

I would prefer that peoples' ideas were reflected here regardless of how well they did in English class.
I agree. However, if you follow the subthread most concisely viewed in these two posts (that's two different links), you'll see that ignoring grammar makes one's ideas difficult to express. Neither of the parties involved (FerretBoy and trs24) did anything very wrong. trs24 used the correct verb ``can'' (assuming I'm correct in his intentions), and FerretBoy made the mistake of assuming he meant ``may'', since the meanings of those two words have become muddied.

The fact that people in prior times refused to learn how to use those words properly means that no one now can expect anyone to use them properly, and it thus becomes more difficult to express your views concisely and concretely. That's why good grammar should always be used. Because it allows one to effectively express his idea.

Of course, that doesn't help when one reneges on his promise not to get involved, but I thought the example was too applicable and contemporaneous to ignore.

Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: For wfaulk and the rest of us... - 07/03/2003 11:59

Well said.