--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 12:46:48AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> > O, and Erik, yes we did turn phrases around a couple of times. The
> > point of that was to express the need for tolerance, and to express
> > that everyone is wrong once and a while even about things that the
> > usually correct others on. I never did thank you for helping me to make
> > that point, or for correcting my error in the process.
>
> That's not necessary. By the way, I think we have a different idea of
> what is meant by tolerance. I didn't intend to make any point about
> spelling when I started that thread (my point was obviously about that
> other phrase which has a million uses :-) , but as it turned out I did
> (and do) have a little something to say about spelling and tolerance.
>
> I DO tolerate bad spelling. By that, I mean that I continue to read
> posts by people regardless of whether their spelling is 99% or 75% or
> whatever. If I couldn't tolerate it, then I would killfile people who
> make a lot of spelling errors. I think that would be silly, it is just
> spelling, not a big deal, I would rather think about concepts than worry
> too much about spelling. However, I don't think tolerating something
> means not mentioning it. I got the impression that you felt that I
> should not bring up the topic. And we apparently do disagree about
> how a computer can be used to aid in spelling (my test of a phonetic
> spelling program found that it could guess the correct spelling with
> high probability and it gave a list of words with brief definitions so
> the correct spelling could be easily chosen).
>
> Although I am certainly capable of figuring out what is meant in posts
> with 25% misspellings, it does slow me down considerably to read such a
> post. Likewise, Jan, I think you are capable of using a good computer
> program to improve your spelling, but it would also slow you down (and
> we apparently disagree on how much). Anyway, I don't think it is
> intolerant to discuss this. As you may have noticed, no topic is sacred
> to me. If you are unable to tolerate this quality of mine, you COULD
> always killfile me. :-)
>
No Erik I am not going to do that. No matter how....unpleasant...some may
find your ...nitpicking... you do not have a tendency to be incorrect. not
that you are not, but it isn't a majority of the time.
Anyway, we do disagree on quite a bit here on the spelling issue, but that
was not what I was talking about. I was referring to earlier posts. We seem
to be turning ones arguments back on each other quite a bit. However, you use
of the particular phrase we a bit redundant and ridiculous. You could have
mearly(sp?) stated the point you were trying to make and been done with it.
I could say that you were in fact being something quite similar to passive
aggressive, only not in much of a "passive" style. And that, more than any
spelling issue is what really annoyed me. It just took me longer to realize
that was what I was responding to.
btw. I spent about 10 minutes spell checking this. I still can not find a
spelling for "mearly" that the checker will accept and so I gave up.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
