The art of proofreading is dead.

[Stonepounder]

Last edited Sun Jun 11, 2017, 11:48 PM - Edit history (1)

I was just checking my email and came across the following subject line:

Stonepounder, Trump and Russia did Collaborate....find out why.


Now, will anybody believe me when I say that I didn't collaborate with Trump and Russia?

[Squinch]

1. Todally. And it's a bad thing.

(But it really is a bad thing.)

[Squinch]

2. And PS Quit collaborating with that asshole!

[petronius]

3. Whose PS Quit? I've never herd of that parson...

[Squinch]

21. He's a lousy Trump(R) collaborator!

[TheBlackAdder]

6. And, it should be, "them thar assholes!"

[Yavin4]

4. Well, what is it that you're not telling us?

What did you know and when did you know it?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. How is that line incorrect (besides the extra capitalization)?

[elleng]

7. Stonepounder's the recipient of the message/letter.

SHOULD have been:

Dear MrMs Stonepounder:

Trump and Russia did Collaborate....find out why.

Love and Kisses,

X

[WhiskeyGrinder]

10. How is it not a direct address?

[elleng]

14. As written, it means

'Stonepounder, Trump and Russia did Collaborate....find out why,' that is that Stonepounder, Trump and Russia all 3 did the collaboration; it does NOT suggest that Stonepounder is being informed that Trump and Russia did Collaborate.

[Ms. Toad]

15. Actually, because the Oxford comma is omitted,

it is perfectly clear.

I would agree with the OP's concern had it been written with the Oxford comma (Stonepounder, Trump, and Russia did collaborate). The Oxford comma (to anyone who still uses it) makes it clear that the three items are a list. Absent the Oxford comma it has a different meaning: Stonepounder is the party to whom the statement, " Trump and Russia did collaborate" is addressed.

Another example - a book dedication: "To my parents, Pope John Paul and Mother Teresa" (Which is dedicated to "my parents" who are Pope John Paul and Mother Teresa). In contrast: "To my parents, Pope John Paul, and Mother Teresa" is a dedication to four individuals.

[elleng]

16. It is NOT perfectly clear,

unless the author intended to say Stonepounder, Trump and Russia collaborated. Stonepounder is not set out as the addressee, and must be such (IF that is the intention of the author.)

[Ms. Toad]

18. We'll have to agree to disagree. n/t

[Leith]

23. I Use the Oxford Comma

Here's another example:

Attending the party were two strippers, Churchill and Stalin.
- This clearly means that the strippers' names were Churchill and Stalin.

Attending the party were two strippers, Churchill, and Stalin.
- There were 4 people at the party: 2 named and 2 unnamed.

It's like the difference between "knowing your shit" and "knowing you're shit."

[Ms. Toad]

30. Yup. n/t

[Revanchist]

36. If you're going for a degree in the sciences that want paper written in APA

You will use a comma in any grouping of three or more that includes either and or or. (That looks funky)

http://www.apastyle.org/learn/faqs/when-use-comma.aspx

[Ms. Toad]

38. It should be standard practice everywhere, since it makes it crystal clear

That the three or more items are a list. But people have gotten lazy, and some style manuals have adapted and now permit omitting the comma before the last item in the list. I had a running battle with my former bosses, who hates the Oxford comma. They want would take mine out when they edited my work - I'd add one in when I edited theirs.

[Chiyo-chichi]

44. Here's the problem....

If it were intended to be a list, and one eschews the Oxford comma--whether out of personal preference or adherence to a particular style guide--one would write it the same way, wouldn't one?

It's clear in context because Stonepounder knows he or she is the recipient and didn't collaborate with Trump and Russia.

[Ms. Toad]

46. It is not a matter of preference or adherence to an arcane style guide, but a matter of clarity.

"My parents, Pope John Paul and Mother Teresa"

is either a list of 4 people OR a way of identifying who "my parents" are.

Similarly, it is entirely unclear if you are told to select any two of the four toppings

olives, pepperoni, onions and peppers and tomatoes

This could mean the four toppings are olives, pepperoni, (a mixture of) onions and peppers, and tomatoes OR it could just as easily mean the four toppings are: olives, pepperoni, Onions, and (a mixture of) peppers and tomatoes

(More substantively, in a former life I wrote patent applications - and picked apart those written by others. The presence or lack of the Oxford comma can have multi-million dollar implications because of the impact on clarity, either to the party trying to protect their intellectual property - or the party trying to design around it.)

I think the statement above is clear as written.

It would be even less open to debate if a carriage return were inserted.

Stonepounder,

Trump and Russia did Collaborate....find out why.

Exact same punctuation - but you couldn't write that in a caption of the email that has only one line.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

19. I read it completely differently, as a direct address.

Elleng, this is a sentence that shows what I'm talking about. Most of the emails I get from party and progressive causes follow this approach to grab my attention.

WhiskeyGrinder, we're so close!

I need your help, WhiskeyGrinder...

WhiskeyGrinder, Trump and Russia DID collaborate.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. It's a subject line, not the email itself

so you cannot use several lines.

It's not incorrect. It's just ambiguous. But the meaning is clear from the actual parties involved (an email titled "Stonepounder, self-employed people and retirees may owe more tax" might be a different matter), so it's not actually worth fussing over.

[VOX]

8. "believe me what I say"...Yes, proofreading IS dead!!1!

Just kidding, you left yourself wide-open on that one. Cheers--

[melman]

11. Yeah I was trying to figure out if that was deliberate

Like a proofreading joke or something.

[ProudLib72]

9. You SOB!

Expect an indictment soon!

[LuckyLib]

12. Yes it is. Early in my work career, I was a secretary. The women who mentored me

told me that nothing goes out that has not been seen by two sets of eyes. As a professional, years later, I was astounded by how nobody proofread anything. Huge, costly mistakes are made because people are careless. Not to mention credibility, which is shot. Your job resume with typos? Poor grammar? Done. You won't get hired. You'd be surprised how many people in decision-making positions see slipshod work at the outset as a no-go.

[spanone]

13. i see it throughout the print media....

[Shrike47]

17. I think the error was substituting a comma for a colon.

It should read "Stonepounder: Trump and Russia did collaborate...find out why." We would all read Stonepounder's articulate and well-written report and learn all about it!

[3catwoman3]

20. I think part of the problem is that a lot of...

...people do not even know they are making mistakes. They wouldn't recognize an error even if they did proofread. The quality of both spoken and written communication is really deteriorating.

I have to bite my tongue all too often so as to keep myself from correcting people people who commit the following offenses:

- "Me and him/her are going to the store." No one ever says, "Him/Her is going to the store," so why not do it right in the plural?

- I should have came/ I should have went. No. You should have come/gone.

-"I wish I was..." I often feel like one of the only people who knows about the subjunctive. "I wish that I were happy about the election outcome." (I sure hope I did that right.)

- 's overuse. Not every word that ends in "s" needs an apostrophe! And, sometimes the apostrophe comes at the very end - "We are going over to the Campbells'. "

- "I" cannot be made into a possessive. I cringe at the increasingly common abomination of usage like,"John and I's vacation." And, just the other day, I heard what I guess I would have to dub a double possessive - "Mary and my's kids."

..................................................................................................................................

I think I must have been an English teacher in one of my previous lives.

Ode To Spellcheck

Eye halve a spelling chequer.
It came with my PC.

It plane lee marks four my revue,
Miss takes I can knot sea.

I've run this poem threw it,
And I'm shore your glad two no.

Its wonder full in every weigh.
My chequer tolled mi sew.

[Ilsa]

26. I cringe when I hear "I" as the second person in the sentence object.

I don't know if I said that correctly, but people are acting like the word "me" is rude or selfish: "The guests presented Jack and I with a magnum of champagne." They would never say, "The guests presented I with a magnum of champagne."

[3catwoman3]

27. Exactly. "I" has come to be regarded as more elegant and proper, even when wrong.

Apropos of your example, neither would anyone say, "They presented we with a magnum of champagne," nor, "Let's keep this between we."

It's really not that hard.

[eppur_se_muova]

22. I see when you mean. nt

[KelleyKramer]

24. You didn't even proofread the 2 lines you wrote

"believe me what I say"

Good grief

What is it they say about throwing stones in glass houses?

[Stonepounder]

25. Whether the subject line is technically correct,

one of the premier rules of proofreading is: if a statement could be misunderstood, rewrite it.

And I am still not collaborating with Trump and Russia!

[democratisphere]

28. Probably caused by dysfunctional auto-incorrect software.

Humans don't make spelling mistakes, just ask drumpf the covfefe.

[customerserviceguy]

29. These are spammers, you expect perfection from them?

I read all kinds of news websites, and all of them make obvious spelling errors. I blame texting and tweeting for the decline of spelling skills in the most recent years, but I will certainly acknowledge a precipitous decline before all of that.

[cwydro]

31. So true.

And posters on DU are no exception.

Really should be a test to see if one knows the difference between "its" and "it's".

[Warren DeMontague]

32. delicious!

[area51]

33. zomg

Rachael Ray's family (& dog), run for the hills!

[WinkyDink]

35. The "problem" is not with the punctuation or grammar; it is with the straight-line structure. It

ought to be:

Stonepounder,

Trump and Russia did collaborate (no capitalization!).....

IOW: What post #7 wrote!

[Revanchist]

37. Can you have two lines as an e-mail subject?

If not, then I would agree with those that stated that the use of a colon would have been the proper formatting.

[malaise]

39. ....

Shouldn't that be ...

[Yonnie3]

40. Not dead, just ...

sitting at home collecting unemployment insurance. As the British say that position was declared redundant.

[NCTraveler]

41. Show me your emails!!!!

Tax returns!!!!

Looks like they have you cornered. What do they have that we don't!!!!

[MoonRiver]

42. Are we allowed to grammar police now?

Please, please, please!

[Persisted]

43. The grammar Nazis

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6060107/grammar-nazis

[MoonRiver]

45. Lol, I guess we who value the English language are Nazis, who generally spoke German btw!