From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 95 09:52:02 PST
To: jpp@markv.com
Subject: Re: Effects of S.314 (Communications Decency Act)
In-Reply-To: <9502072124.aa20836@hermix.markv.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950209092021.25204A-100000@crl.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

THIS IS A GRAMMAR FLAME.  Delete now if you don't like that sort
of thing.

Recently, several folks on this list have posted `letters to the
editor' or `letters to their representatives' that they had 
already sent or intended to send.  While most stated their case
clearly and dramatically, much of their impact was lost due to
grammar and spelling errors.  If your purpose is to persuade, 
don't shoot yourself in the foot by writing like an illiterate.

I know, I know, Net dwellers fancy themselves `above' such 
pedestrian nit picking.  The truth is, though, those who you 
intend to persuade will judge your intellect by these standards 
as much as by your content.  And in a way, they are right.  If 
you are too sloppy or lazy to write correct English, how unlikely 
is it that your thinking is equally sloppy and lazy?

In previous postings I have kept my comments to private e-mail.
I apologize to J Prime for going off on him publicly, but (a) it 
had to be someone, and (b) his posting is particularly egregious
in this regard.  (I did like *what* he said, just now *how* he
said it.)

Among ourselves, we can be less formal, but when we go public, I
think we would be a lot more effective if we had more respect for
the technical aspects of our prose.


 S a n d y

P.S.  I hope I didn't misplace any modifiers or misspell 
      anything in this post.  But if I did, please do as I
      say, not as I do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~