<p>I suppose I am again in the minority. Provided I generally understand what the other party is trying get across, then I don’t care whether his grammar is perfect. If it isn’t, that’s something he should be concerned with; I’m not going to waste my time to pick apart what he’s written.
Most people tend to find this annoying and it’s unlikely that he’ll take anything from it, if he thinks I’m taking jabs at him by correcting his every word, especially when I am also far from perfect.</p>
<p>Oh, silverturtle, you certainly display a unique brand of egotism. I suppose I should thank you, though, for pointing out my spelling error in construction and for correcting my due to/because of mix-up. However, the rest of your corrections are merely a display of obstinacy on your part; articles like and, but, and or do not need to be followed by a comma as you suggested- unless, that is, they are inserted in the midst of a list (like the one earlier in this sentence). Also, the two instances in which you accused me of redundancy were, in fact, not redundant. If you are unaware of the differences in the definitions of commonplace and everyday, however subtle they may be, then I recommend that you employ Mr. Webster and quickly edify yourself. I’ll likewise take this opportunity to suggest that you read Plattsburgh’s post; you might learn something from it. Just as applicannot and Plattsburgh affirmed, no one is perfect. I created this thread as more a survey than a criticism.</p>
<p>Lastly, applicannot, you have concisely summed up my exact feeling! A little effort to write as grammatically as possible is certainly warranted in Ivy aspirers.</p>
<p>The complete definition of “commonplace” offered by Merriam-Webster:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The complete definition of “everyday” offered by Merriam-Wesbter:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From the Random House Dictionary on the definitoin of “everyday”:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please enlighten me about the denotative differences and how they semantically affect your original point. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Random House Dictionary on the definition of “idiosyncrasy” (I missed this the first time):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Random House Dictionary on the definition of “personal”:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How exactly, then, does “personal” modify “idiosyncrasy”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From the Purdue University Online Writing Lab:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When the subject is repeated or a new subject is introduced (as you did in every instance in which I corrected you), an independent clause results. There are, however, some style books that accept the rare omission of the comma in very brief and parallel independent clauses, such as “He won but he was unhappy.” Your uses do not fit this special case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Merriam-Webster on the definition of “egotism”:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not know what gave you this false impression; surely you recognized that I was merely being ironic. I made my initial corrections with comic intent and did not wish to offend you. I do not hesitate, however, to defend my corrections: you indicated your desire for clear and grammatical communication, and it now appears that these mistakes were more than the mere products of typographical error.</p>
<p>as long as I can understand the post, the grammar and syntax it uses is unimportant</p>
<p>“as long as I can understand the post, the grammar and syntax it uses is unimportant”</p>
<p>That is EXACTLY why correct usage is important – to ensure that the message is UNDERSTOOD! Why leave it to chance with ambiguities?</p>