🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2dsu72$pg1@news.acns.nwu.edu> len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens) writes:
>Someone complained recently that there were too many flames about
>the spelling or grammar of postings.   It was suggested that we concentrate
>on the substance of a posting rather than its form.   However, on some
>occasions, grammatical and other inadequacies make it very difficult,
>if not impossible, for some of us to understand the substance.   The
>posting below is an example.
>
>In article <CHJ7JL.LoK@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rjw9y@envsci.evsc.virginia.edu. (rjw9y) writes:
>>i have been reviewing the scientific jounals for cliamte change
>>articles and reviewing them for a fellowship over the last 2 years.  My

  I was the one who originally posted on this.  

  Sure, in cases where there is confusion, no problem.  Ask for 
  specific clarifications, politely.  I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

  The guidelines on this were written to discourage bashing and ridicule.
  Further, NetNews is global in its membership, and so a certain amount 
  of language mangling is to be expected.  However, to condemn somebody 
  for obvious slips of the fingers is neither productive nor fair.  I was 
  prompted to post by this sort of flaming. Specifically, as the parting 
  shot of a thoroughly uncivil response, a poster was bashed for the 
  omission of an irrelevant apostrophe.
  
  I urge you to read the NetNews guidelines, which I'm pretty sure
  every NetNews facility maintains, on spelling and grammar flames.

  rick adair