This is stoopid! Yes the 'ad-writer' needed their copy reviewed - because it was being used publicly.
Grammar on the PDML does not matter unless we fail to convey our point. This is an informal discussion group. Like Doe aka Marnie, what really annoys me is when a colleague proof reads a software system specification and returns it with pissy, pedantic grammar and spelling corrections - some of which are not actually or necessarily correct and little or no comment on the content or whether the system is well designed or up to the job. Fine the grammar and spelling should be correct in an ideal world, but that was not why I got them to proof read it - correcting perfectly adequate text on internal documents at the client's expense is a waste of their money, this is not what they pay us for. Yes we should try to get things right, but when we read for our own consumption only we should read the meaning rather than the grammar. Life is much less stressful that way. Personally I keep my spellchecker turned off on my email as I would rather send a document with a couple of typos (sorry typographical errors) than keep OKing tens of hundreds of spellchecker messages with urls, technical terms and words which are not in the computer's dictionary. That's my rant done... Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 23 January 2003 08:32 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor > > > In a message dated 1/23/2003 1:40:22 AM Eastern Standard > Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > I once worked with an advertising director who was like > this. She was > > responsible for writing house ads, but as a writer she was beyond > > bad--she was _awful_. She couldn't punctuate, her word choice was > > approximate at best, she had no sense for subtlety. But her very > > awfulness made her impossible to work with. She would never run her > > work past the copyeditor or me; she would actually > _withhold_ her work > > from review because she was annoyed when people made > changes to what > > she'd written. When called on it, her response was usually > that _she_ > > knew what she meant, and therefore "the readers will know what I > > mean." This even extended to spelling mistakes! She'd spell > inevitable > > "inevitible" and then defend herself by saying, "So what? > Look at it. > > You can't tell that that's 'inevitable'? Anybody can tell > what that's > > supposed to be." Protests that edited magazines were > actually supposed > > to be _correct_ (and that this was what the editorial > department spent > > most of the workdays doing) were lost on her. She just couldn't see > > why it mattered. > > > > I'm like this with numbers. I'll be quoting numbers and I'll skip a > > digit and say billion when I mean million,* and somebody > will call me > > on it and I'll say "whatever." Of course it's not > "whatever." If the > > person I'm talking to is good with numbers and gains a subtle > > understanding of meanings from numbers, it matters very much. > > Mike, sorry. I probably get going on this subject as much as > you do -- in the opposite direction. Having hung around > writers, I think those in love with the written word have a > hard time understanding there are others who aren't. And some > who are rather indifferent to it. Just as some don't care for > B&W photography, some don't care for color photography, some > don't care for photography, some don't care for art, and some > don't care for numbers. Should those people jump through > hoops to please those who do care? I don't think so. > > Admittedly someone being published in a magazine should be > willing to be proof read. But I read your story quite > different from the interpretation you put on it. I think that > woman knew quite well that she was a bad writer, she was just > defensive. Tired of being corrected all the time, and > probably tired of being corrected by the *same* people all > the time. (Been there, done that.) So she ended up hiding her > work to avoid constant correction -- to avoid feeling "put > down" and to avoid feeling bad about herself. Pure human > nature. I have yet to meet a person who likes being corrected > all the time. Sometimes yes, all the time, or fairly > frequently, no. And some can't even handle being corrected > infrequently. > > Not everyone is going to love the written word. Some of us > just view it as a means to an end. That's just a fact of life. > > Again, apologies for losing my temper. > > Doe aka Marnie Even if it wasn't that evident. > >
