🚀 go-pugleaf

Like a discredited charlatan, run out of too many towns on a
rail for peddling a particularly foul and worthless brand of
snake oil, John "Woof" Davis grows increasingly desperate
for a better method of trying to get by.  Now he's decided
to play the metaphorical card cheat and stack a deck. 
Unfortunately for the Woofster, I'm busting him before 
he has the chance to deceive any additional dupes.

As some may know, I have expressed my impatience for those
who use "typo-pouncing" as a means of distracting the 
readers from the more significant matters that the 
typo-pouncer wishes to avoid dealing with.  (See, for
instance, my recent "Dumpster Rodent's Flash of Brilliance",
or my "Typo-pouncing Baboon Sits on Own Post".)  As a
way of trying to pluck his two cohorts (now greased,
battered, and well-roasted on both sides) from the
fires they have built with their own wrong-headed
actions, John "Woof" Davis has been flourishing a 
stacked deck of cards in the hopes of trying to suck
me into a rigged game of his own making and control.

Being wise to the interminable schemes of the Woofster--
and yet earnestly desiring to prove that I will in no
way duck what sound like reasonable questions--I have
decided to make the game fair by simply adding three
sensible questions of my own to match the three now being
bandied about by Woof Davis.  (I think that most readers
realize that my answering only "Sharper Woof"'s queries
would be akin in foolishness to holding the Presidential
debates and asking both candidates only a carefully- 
crafted series of questions framed by ONE of them.
I should be such a rube, Woofster!)

"Three/three" is fair enough.

1.)  Question from Bill Palmer:

Why is it important to distinguish between a "typo" and
the ignorant misspelling of a word?

A typo is an incorrect spelling due to a careless typing 
error.  Usually the reader can identify these easily since 
they don't represent the kind of mistakes writers make due 
to lack of spelling knowledge.  Examples of typos might be
"ppost", "tellling", or "hte".

An occasional typo means the the writer may not be the
Net's best typist, and that her or she probably limits
proofreading time in the interest of writing and posting
spontaneity.  That is especially understandable in the
cases of frequent posters of long articles.

An ignorant misspelling will be the kind of spelling
error that school teachers of various grades see on
student papers and spelling quizzes.  This type of 
misspelling will occur repeatedly in the posts of
the unschooled.   Examples might be "sentance" for
"sentence", "refering" for "referring", or "mearly"
for "merely".

Distinguishing between the two is important, because
the poster who makes frequent, identical misspellings
of the same words lacks concern for the needs of his
or her readers.  Repeated misspellings of common words
will adversely affect article coherence.

On the other hand, an occasional typo of the "asnwer"
type will perhaps at most require one or two nanoseconds
for the normal reading brain to "translate".  Most
USENET readers accept that as reasonable, if they have
enough interest in a subject of an article to begin
reading it in the first place.

2.) Question from John "Woof" Davis:

Is a typo a misspelled word?

First, let us remember that we speak here of the spontaneous
writing of USENET posters, not of the PH.D, dissertations of
English scholars, or of the articles appearing in print in 
respected periodicals.  Most important, however, is the 
need to recall that there remains a world of difference--
as far as article coherence--between the posts of someone
who makes one or two typos every few hundred words (and
few, if any, other writing errors ever); and the posts of the
orthographical ignoramus who writes "mearly" again and again.  
With those very reasonable qualifications, a "dictionary yes" 
would be a correct answer in a simplistic and limited sense.

3.)  Question from Bill Palmer:

Are typos harmful to Net communication?

Of course, an absolutely, one-hundred percent imperfection-
free post reads more pleasantly than one with even a few
mistakes--at least to very good readers, and when we are
speaking of articles of the same general level of reader 
interest; writing quality; and length.  However, someone
who posts thousands of highly coherent words within a 
week's time shows a conscientiousness and talent far
above that of the average USENET poster--IF those 
articles are entirely, or almost entirely, free of
standard identifiable errors in grammar, punctuation,
spelling, and vocabulary.

On the other hand, VERY frequent typos, say one in ten
words (as opposed to one in 200 words) would likely 
adversely affect the document's coherence in the minds
of most readers.

4.) Question from John "Woof" Davis:

Are your responsible for the typos in your articles?

This question is not entirely reasonable in connotation,
since the word "responsible" posits an incorrect notion
that a rare typo should be somehow troubling a poster
enough to cause him or her to fret about "responsbility".
Of course, yes, a writer is responsible for ANY imperfection
in his writing--providing there was no gratuitous editor or 
careless human printer between the writer and the reader.
Even so, when an occasional typo is put next to a grammar,
punctuation, or word choice error, the typo becomes so 
miniscule in significance that the word "responsible" 
becomes ludicrous--such as, "Are you responsible for that 
pebble you kicked from the street onto your driveway?"

5.) Question from John "Woof" Davis":

If not, who is responsible for them?

If the typos occur frequently enought to  affect the coherence
of a document in a significant fashion, the question may become
pertinent; so again, a USENET writer takes responsibility for 
all imperfections, however minute and unworthy of sincere
remark, in his or her post.

6.)  Question from Bill Palmer:

What is the difference between "typo-pouncing", and a
legitimate pointing out of writing errors seriously
affecting a document's coherence?

Of course, if a post proves so error-filled that reading
it becomes annoying or difficult for the normal reader, 
this should be pointed out to the writer in his or her 
best interests; otherwise the poster risks losing readers.

However, when pouncing on a rare typo (through follow-up 
posts) becomes simply  a means of slyly casting unwarranted
aspersions on an article's coherence (and thereby of 
denigrating the writer's thoughts) it becomes unfair.  
When it becomes simply a tool that the follow-up 
writer uses to avoid intellecual challenge, it becomes 
reprehensible.

---------------------------

Your comments are awaited with interest.  However, 
if you simply intend to lame me for pushing 
the wrong buttons, please have the courtesy to
the a.c.u. and the a.f.s. folks to trim your 
follow-ups for only appearing in the flame groups. 
 
Advisory:  Out of respect to my topic, I gave the
above +1,200 word article an extra one minute and thirty 
seconds of proofreading time.  Whether you find one, 
two, or six typos in it, remember--YOU should do half
as well, when overall coherence is fairly considered.