Once again ShopTalk expands its horizons into the vast world of grammar, spelling and syntax. Who would have thought we would have the opportunity to expand our typed communication skills by signing up for a forum on clubmaking and fitting? Nevertheless, I welcome the clarity brought on by the interplay in this thread. I was having a hell of a time deciphering "New Head and Misshits". Maybe the typist meant Miss Hits and Head. Mmmmm, interesting. Then I thought, "What if he left out another s and space?" Miss shits is what I attempt to do when I mow our lawn. Guess that's not it; this IS a forum on clubmaking and club fitting after all. And if the author really meant Misshits; well let's just not get into that (as Burgess said, a disappointing experience). So using my laser intellect, I deducted Misshits referred to the errant striking of a golf ball and the New Heads referred to the use of same as it applied to such striking.
Even the rankest, room-temperature IQ who was born yesterday knows that email has exposed the worst in writing from almost all quarters. The purpose of is to communicate ideas to other people who are interested in the same field. Soooooooo......... Those who would draw conclusions on a persons character, education level, worthiness, ambition, etc. based on their spelling skills really needs to get a life. I prefer to give the writer the benefit of the doubt concerning his typed communication skills. I was taught that prejudice was NOT a desired character trait. Based on prior postings I do not believe Burgess to be a prejudicial person. CMR, based on the post below, IMO (excuse the initials!) the verdict is still out. Should you (or any other forum member for that matter) wish to prejudge me based on my typing and grammar skills judge away. You will be wrong and on my part ignored. The Literary Guild is calling, GregZ Due apologies FWI(f------)W to those offended? Have a nice day. :-} > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of connie mack rea > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 6:34 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: ShopTalk: New Head and Misshits > > > > Burgess Howell wrote: > > > Normally, I'm not much of a stickler for spelling in e-mail, > but has anyone > > noticed the subject line of this thread? > > > > There's quite a difference between a "mishit" and a "misshit," though I > > suppose both can be disappointing experiences. > > > > Burgess > > > > Demon spelling ought not demonize good spelling as demon > punctuation ought not > demonize standard punctuation. It is of no matter whether the context is > e-mail, a letter to the editor, or a letter to your lover. > > Most of us know each other on the forum through his writing. If > we all were > superlatively fluent but with faults, and the faults were bad spelling, > non-standard usage, and guess-work punctuation, then there would > be a marginal > reason for excusing ourselves. Minus that fluency, every reader > who still has > standards infers that the faults are telltale signatures of errors > intentionally let stand. > > No writer ever composes as poorly as he can. He always writes as > best he can. > Therefore, when errors are offered without apology, the reader's inference > reflects poorly on the writer; and he is silently marked down. > > An archer can waste time by trying to multiply a split hair as well as by > trying to hit an object out of his reach. Burgess is neither > trying to split a > hair by noting the misspelling nor is he requesting something unreachable. > > In an irrational moment, a writer of e-mail may demand his > constitutional right > to compose anyway his wishes, even poorly. But why demand a right that > disparages and draws unwanted attention? > > To write poorly is to invite prejudice about one's ability. To > ask for a bit > more care in spelling, usage, and punctuation is not to > fingerprint a prejudice > and then be unable to find a hand to punish. The hand is upon us > as Burgess > has politely pointed out in his example and at the same time implied the > presence of remote hands elsewhere. > > To give no thought to what others may infer from your writing is to delude > yourself that the readers' silence sanctions your writing. Some > writing errors > are misdemeanors. Others are felonies. Every reader is a judge. > The writer > can't hope that every judge is incompetent or indifferent. > > No one wants to be a root-canal grammarian; however, good writing is not > painless. > > > CMR > > > > > > > >
