Language matters! The rules must be the same

[billyb1012]

Hello from the resident philological nit-picker. In the most recent commentary (2/22/07), we find yet another verbatim reply, with misspellings and grammatical mistakes not only intact, but gleefully pointed out to our less literate members with the damning [sic]! This from the Sniffex CEO (and only officer of the corporation).

Yet we also read this, un-annotated (is that a word?) from the good Doctor Flamm who urges us to complain en masse to the Journal of Reproductive Medicine: "...[a] comprehensive article giving into the basis for this opinion." Huh? I don't see a [sic]. Scuse me, but isn't this sentence missing a subject? Aren't we missing a noun here, at least as a modifier? Am I picking nits? Yep! Is it important? You bet. Here's why...

We are skeptics. We demand proof before belief. We cannot use semi-literacy against our adversaries (especially in a quasi-sarcastic manner, as James seems to delight in doing), as an indication that their inquisitveness might somehow be hampered by their poor language skills, unless, like Caesar's wife, we are totally above reproach. ( I was going to say unless we throw stones against the glass walls of our palace, but decided it was too tortured a metaphor.)

I can hear you now: "you pick out one mis-typed sentence, and make a big deal out of it!" "Well, I still knew what he meant, and the message still came through loud and clear!" "Stop picking on the little stuff".

No.

It matters!

We simply cannot use misspellings and grammatical errors as ammunition against our adversaries, while condoing them ourselves. It isn't fair, and it isn't right. I pissed Randi off several years ago by chastising him for referring to the Russians as "Soviets", 10 years after the collapse of the USSR, and my argument now is the same as it was then: we are representatives of the James Randi Educational Foundation, and we have a responsibility to Get It Right!!!!!

[tkingdoll]

I think you're misunderstanding what "sic" is for. Randi doesn't use it to mock the typos, he uses it to show that the mispelling is from the original text and not an error added when he reproduced the quote.

You must bear in mind that the only source we have for the quotes is the reproduction in the commentary, we don't see the original emails. Therefore, it's essential that Randi (or any writer) confirms that an error is an accurate part of the quote.

It's a standard journalism tool and has nothing whatsoever to do with Randi's own standard of writing.

He does mock typos though, as we see from his use of the mis-spelled word in his replies to the original writer, but certainly not through the use of "sic".

That's my nitpick out of the way. Carry on!

[Slimething]

Yet we also read this, un-annotated (is that a word?) from the good Doctor Flamm who urges us to complain en masse to the Journal of Reproductive Medicine: "...[a] comprehensive article giving into the basis for this opinion." Huh? I don't see a [sic]. Scuse me, but isn't this sentence missing a subject? Aren't we missing a noun here, at least as a modifier? Am I picking nits? Yep! Is it important? You bet.

I'm not sure we're missing anything as much as we have too much. The "into" in the above sentence could be deleted to make the phrase make sense. (I was tempted to write "since" just to give you a thrill!) It could also be a misspelled "info" and then would lack an "on". Dunno.

I think you're right in an academic sort of way. However, Randi seems to put these commentaries out without running them by a proofreader or an editor. That practice leads to some grammatical and spelling errors but but it also preserves a certain punch and freshness to the commentary that I enjoy. I would put up with these infrequent errors rather than lose the freshness of the commentaries.

I suppose Randi could run his drafts by any one of several very-qualified editors on his staff but he doesn't. I, for one, don't care unless it's something that would be more widely read. IOW, me like da statice kwo. ;)

[HawkeyeMD]

...Yet we also read this, un-annotatedneeds close of phrase comma here (is that a word?) from the good Doctor Flamm who urges us to complain en masse to the Journal of Reproductive Medicine: "...[a] comprehensive article giving into the basis for this opinion." Huh? I don't see a [sic]. Indicate abbreviation with apostropheScuse me, but isn't this sentence missing a subject? ...

We are skeptics. We demand proof before belief. We cannot use semi-literacy against our adversaries (especially in a quasi-sarcastic manner, as James seems to delight in doing),this comma unnecessary as an indication that their inquisitvenesssic might somehow be hampered by their poor language skills, unless, like Caesar's wife, we are totally above reproach. ( I was going to say unless we throw stones against the glass walls of our palace, but decided it was too tortured a metaphor.)Indeed.

We simply cannot use misspellings and grammatical errors as ammunition against our adversaries,comma not necessary here either while condoingsic them ourselves. It isn't fair, and it isn't right. I pissed Randi off several years ago by chastising him for referring to the Russians as "Soviets", 10 years after the collapse of the USSR, and my argument now is the same as it was then: we are representatives of the James Randi Educational Foundation, and we have a responsibility to Get It Right!!!!!

You were saying? :cool:

[baron]

You were saying? :cool:

You completely missed the point. Not that I think that the point is particularly worth defending.

[fls]

It matters!

We simply cannot use misspellings and grammatical errors as ammunition against our adversaries, while condoing them ourselves. It isn't fair, and it isn't right. I pissed Randi off several years ago by chastising him for referring to the Russians as "Soviets", 10 years after the collapse of the USSR, and my argument now is the same as it was then: we are representatives of the James Randi Educational Foundation, and we have a responsibility to Get It Right!!!!!

I'm coming around to the opinion that all this "holding ourselves to the same standards as we hold others" discussion is pointless. If we can't even get skeptics to care, do we really think anyone else cares?

Linda

[HawkeyeMD]

You completely missed the point. Not that I think that the point is particularly worth defending.

No, I didn't miss the point at all. I'm all for proofreading and personally, spelling and grammar mistakes bother me too.

I just think it was a silly point to make over some fairly clear typos in a relatively rushed medium (email). So I merely pointed out that, ironically, he who was making tortured metaphors about glass houses and Caesar's wife should maybe look to the beam in his own eye.

Wow. A threefer.

[Slimething]

I'm coming around to the opinion that all this "holding ourselves to the same standards as we hold others" discussion is pointless. If we can't even get skeptics to care, do we really think anyone else cares?

Linda, you're missing the point. The standards that skeptics are serious about concern honesty, intelligence and integrity, not spelling and grammar. Just suppose that overnight the wackos of the world started communicating with perfect grammar. Would that make their points any more worthwhile or valid?

I believe I saw a correlation between education and woo-gullibility the other day. No doubt, there's also a correlation between education and proper writing as the latter must be learned. I believe that many of us point to badly-written communications as evidence of lack of education and, thereby, a tendency to credulity in the bizzare.

I don't think there's any hypocrisy here only, as you point out, indifference. Having this particular equilibrium go one way or another would not have any effect on the principal differences.

[fls]

Originally Posted by fls
I'm coming around to the opinion that all this "holding ourselves to the same standards as we hold others" discussion is pointless. If we can't even get skeptics to care, do we really think anyone else cares?

Linda, you're missing the point. The standards that skeptics are serious about concern honesty, intelligence and integrity, not spelling and grammar.

Truly, my comment is meant to cover any of those areas.

Just suppose that overnight the wackos of the world started communicating with perfect grammar. Would that make their points any more worthwhile or valid?

Probably about as much as if they were all honest and intelligent.

I believe I saw a correlation between education and woo-gullibility the other day. No doubt, there's also a correlation between education and proper writing as the latter must be learned. I believe that many of us point to badly-written communications as evidence of lack of education and, thereby, a tendency to credulity in the bizzare.

I don't think there's any hypocrisy here only, as you point out, indifference. Having this particular equilibrium go one way or another would not have any effect on the principal differences.

Yeah. So I don't there's any particular need for skeptics to be examples of honesty, integrity, intelligence or competent spellers.

Linda

[sphenisc]

Dang, my typing's too slow.

Deleted.

[Slimething]

Truly, my comment is meant to cover any of those areas.

Then you need to make a more compelling case. You should begin a new thread, though, as this one is more aimed at grammar and spelling.

Probably about as much as if they were all honest and intelligent.

An interesting premise: would there be any woo if everyone were honest and intelligent? Certainly, there wouldn't be any more con artists which are the ones that most skeptics hate.

Yeah. So I don't there's any particular need for skeptics to be examples of honesty, integrity, intelligence or competent spellers.

Your response here is difficult to decypher. All I can say is "it is what it is". You really should start your own thread about what you see as either hypocritical or irresponsible practices by skeptics. I don't believe that a thread concerning spelling/grammar flaws will attract the attention of the philosophical heavyweights on this forum with whom you should be in contact.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I care about language. I'm the "notice the unintended meanings" person. But I do believe the OP member is wrong.

I agree with tking that '[sic]' is not used as intended sarcasm. Once in a while it highlights irony. But I do believe the correct usage is to note it was the quotee's error and not the quoter's and is proper to use lest it appear as poor quoting technique. Some of us more compulsive editors of our own posts experience stress over the dilemma of leaving mis-spellings in a quote or compulsively fixing them. [Sic] offers relief from the burden of decision.

Was there something else in the complaint I missed in all that excessive rhetoric?

[Horatius]

I care about language. I'm the "notice the unintended meanings" person. But I do believe the OP member is wrong.

I agree with tking that '[sic]' is not used as intended sarcasm. Once in a while it highlights irony. But I do believe the correct usage is to note it was the quotee's error and not the quoter's and is proper to use lest it appear as poor quoting technique. Some of us more compulsive editors of our own posts experience stress over the dilemma of leaving mis-spellings in a quote or compulsively fixing them. [Sic] offers relief from the burden of decision.


Another aspect is to make it clear that such mis-spellings weren't introduced in an attempt to make the writter look foolish. Quite often I've seen posters in the Conspiracy Forum edit posts to cover-up their mistakes, and accuse others of making things up when they quote the original post.

You don't need to do this for people you agree with, because no one is likely to accuse you of trying to make them look stupid.

[baron]

Off topic slightly, but I often wonder about the selection process Randi uses for email in his commentary. How many emails does Randi receive that are well-structured, grammatically correct and thought-provoking, but don't see the light of day because they don't suit Randi's purpose?

I don't know, I just wondered.

[fls]

Then you need to make a more compelling case. You should begin a new thread, though, as this one is more aimed at grammar and spelling.

Wow. I'm such a rebel.

An interesting premise: would there be any woo if everyone were honest and intelligent?

How amazingly insulting. It's a good thing that we don't care whether or not we are mean to woos. ;)

Your response here is difficult to decypher. All I can say is "it is what it is". You really should start your own thread about what you see as either hypocritical or irresponsible practices by skeptics. I don't believe that a thread concerning spelling/grammar flaws will attract the attention of the philosophical heavyweights on this forum with whom you should be in contact.

Your not seriously proposing that skeptics are not normal humans, are you? Why does it require philosophical heavyweights to discuss the proposition that both skeptics and woos are subject to normal human flaws and foibles. My suggestion is not that bizarre, is it?

Linda

[Slimething]

How amazingly insulting. It's a good thing that we don't care whether or not we are mean to woos. ;)

You took umbrage at this? What part of woo is not explained by either ignorance or dishonesty? I'm not mean to woos unless they get obnoxious to me or are trying to make a buck off a friend. Once that threshold is crossed, they're fair game.

Your not seriously proposing that skeptics are not normal humans, are you?

No, I've had plenty of scrapes with other skeptics, here and elsewhere, because I or they are just too human. Skepticality refers to only one aspect of personality. All other virtues/foibles follow the same distribution and span as for the rest of the population.


Why does it require philosophical heavyweights to discuss the proposition that both skeptics and woos are subject to normal human flaws and foibles. My suggestion is not that bizarre, is it?


I don't want to insult you, Linda, but most people don't care. I, for one, understand that people are people and that they will act like people. There is nothing in what Randi wrote or how he wrote it that dismays me in any sense. If he misspells a word every once in a while, or if I do, that does not put me in the same league as the majority of woo artists I've read over the years. You're talking vastly different levels of degree there.

Maybe you're the one who's arguing that skeptics are not people? I suggested getting the philosophers to discuss this with because they are the ones most likely to give the topic their attention. As you see, I'm fairly ambivalent.

[Roboramma]

No, I didn't miss the point at all. I'm all for proofreading and personally, spelling and grammar mistakes bother me too.

I just think it was a silly point to make over some fairly clear typos in a relatively rushed medium (email). So I merely pointed out that, ironically, he who was making tortured metaphors about glass houses and Caesar's wife should maybe look to the beam in his own eye.

Wow. A threefer.

Sorry, but you did miss the point. The OP's point wasn't about poor spelling, grammar, or punctuation. His point is about unequal treatment. If we point out the mistakes of those we disagree with, but ignore the mistakes of those we do agree with, then we aren't playing fair.

And if we cared about the truth as much as we all say we do then we would play fair.

Note: I haven't even read the commentary, so I don't know if Randi is guilty of any of the things the OP suggests. I also mostly agree with teek, though I admit that [sic] can be sarcastic if used in a certain way. Agian, I don't know that Randi's use was such, however.

[HawkeyeMD]

Sorry, but you did miss the point. The OP's point wasn't about poor spelling, grammar, or punctuation. His point is about unequal treatment. If we point out the mistakes of those we disagree with, but ignore the mistakes of those we do agree with, then we aren't playing fair.

And if we cared about the truth as much as we all say we do then we would play fair.

Note: I haven't even read the commentary, so I don't know if Randi is guilty of any of the things the OP suggests. I also mostly agree with teek, though I admit that [sic] can be sarcastic if used in a certain way. Agian, I don't know that Randi's use was such, however.

Nonsense. The post absolutely was about poor spelling, grammar and punctuation. The OP was pointing out that Randi himself made grammatical errors while posting a verbatim quote from the Sniffex CEO, in which the OP interpreted the usage of "sic" as being sarcastic. OP made several grammatical and spelling errors himself, which I then pointed out.

OP's point was not about equal treatment, it was about his/her perception that Randi (aka 'Dr. Flamm') was treating the SniffexCEO with contempt while also making these egregious errors *himself*. OP also mentions an error of fact that Randi made some time ago.

Randi did not ignore poor spelling or grammar in another paper he agreed with--he made some mistakes of his own while pointing out those of another. That is what the OP is complaining about. OP referenced Caesar's wife and being above reproach. That's about one's own behavior, not equal treatment of others.

My post was intended to point out the futility of being the resident nitpicker unless you're going to follow your own advice and be above reproach.

Thass all. [sic] :cool:

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry, but you did miss the point. The OP's point wasn't about poor spelling, grammar, or punctuation. His point is about unequal treatment. If we point out the mistakes of those we disagree with, but ignore the mistakes of those we do agree with, then we aren't playing fair.

And if we cared about the truth as much as we all say we do then we would play fair.

Note: I haven't even read the commentary, so I don't know if Randi is guilty of any of the things the OP suggests. I also mostly agree with teek, though I admit that [sic] can be sarcastic if used in a certain way. Agian, I don't know that Randi's use was such, however.
Until you pointed this out, I missed it in the OP,

"We simply cannot use misspellings and grammatical errors as ammunition against our adversaries, while condoing[sic] them ourselves. It isn't fair, and it isn't right."

Now we need to know if the premise was correct and [sic] was used in one quote but not another, or whether billyb interpreted [sic] as negative or for emphasis when in reality it was merely normal editing practice.

I imagine that answer is in the thread posts somewhere. It sure is easy to miss stuff.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Tking notes: "[Randi] does mock typos though, as we see from his use of the mis-spelled word in his replies to the original writer, but certainly not through the use of "sic".

So that answers my question I suppose.

My new reply to the OP becomes, why not? Being an educational foundation shouldn't mean you can't point to the lack of education in a person promoting an uneducated thing.

[fls]

You took umbrage at this? What part of woo is not explained by either ignorance or dishonesty?

The part where people have different beliefs from me, and draw informed and honest conclusions that differ from mine. Or maybe you're thinking of the "no true Scotsman" reasoning, and that isn't considered "woo"?

I don't want to insult you, Linda, but most people don't care. I, for one, understand that people are people and that they will act like people.

I think you may be right, but I don't see how that could insult. Most people don't care about what I say.

Now you've got me worried that I'm not sufficiently sensitive to insult. ;)

There is nothing in what Randi wrote or how he wrote it that dismays me in any sense. If he misspells a word every once in a while, or if I do, that does not put me in the same league as the majority of woo artists I've read over the years. You're talking vastly different levels of degree there.

Maybe you're the one who's arguing that skeptics are not people? I suggested getting the philosophers to discuss this with because they are the ones most likely to give the topic their attention. As you see, I'm fairly ambivalent.

In the last 2 weeks, there have been at least 4 or 5 threads pointing out minor errors in the writing of skeptics. Some of these threads have been quite drawn out, arguing about the relative equivalence of the transgressions, based on the assumption that the rules must be the same.

To me, it looks like the conflict could be resolved by dropping the assumption or by begging the question.

Linda

(Disclaimer: if you are not interested in what I have to say, it is perfectly acceptable to ignore it. Really. :))

[Slimething]

The part where people have different beliefs from me, and draw informed and honest conclusions that differ from mine. Or maybe you're thinking of the "no true Scotsman" reasoning, and that isn't considered "woo"?

Different beliefs are not woo. False beliefs are woo. How does that not allow people to have different opinions as long as they are intelligent opinions?

In the last 2 weeks, there have been at least 4 or 5 threads pointing out minor errors in the writing of skeptics. Some of these threads have been quite drawn out, arguing about the relative equivalence of the transgressions, based on the assumption that the rules must be the same.

I don't hold the same opinion of those threads as you do. One thread I saw complained about lack of spelling skills. Another, lack of imagination. Yes, I've seen bad spelling and poor sentence/paragraph structure by both skeptics and woos alike but the woos have made this foible an art. It's a noticeable difference in degree.

I POSTED that I find IT very annoying WHEN a woo capitalizes words SEEMINGLY at radom because they MUST feel that THEY have something SO really, really important TO convey. Haven't you noticed that, too?

Speaking of begging the question, Linda, why are you so careful with your writing? Could it be because incorrect spelling and bad grammar would make you seem ignorant?

(Disclaimer: if you are not interested in what I have to say, it is perfectly acceptable to ignore it. Really. :))

Linda, what you write is interesting but there are bigger fish to fry. Don't sell yourself short. I listen to what you're saying. But, you're right, this horse we're flogging is getting rank. It's been great. See you around the place? :)

[billyb1012]

Thanks to everyone who's replied so far. It's an interesting, educational, and civil debate. A particular shout-out to HawkeyeMD who noticed my 2 misspellings and 2 mis-used commas, and one missing comma. However, I'm confused by the [indicate abbreviation with apostrophe]. Where should I have put the apostrophe, and why?

To tkingdoll, and others who replied in the same vein: yes, [sic] is grammatically proper, and often necessary; I know full well what it means, and how it should be used. I know too, that it can be a rhetorical weapon, and I find it used in this manner by Randi and his correspondents on this site, more often than I am comfortable with.

Consider: How often have you read a newspaper column, magazine article, or other essay that included a verbatim transcript of words not written by the author of the piece, which contained misspellings, archaic spellings, place-names that no longer exist, or grammatical slips, or outright egregious mistakes, that weren't denoted with [sic], because the quote was separated from the main body of the text in a recognizable manner, or because the writer simply deemed it unnecessary?

Now consider: An essay that prefaces such transcripts (as Randi almost always does) with "spelling and grammar intact", or words that have the same effect, before indicating every slip with a [sic]. To me, this is rhetorical overkill; it amounts to sticking the knife in, and then twisting it.

Perhaps I was a bit harsh choosing the example I did: I do not know if it was a typographical error by Randi, or if he copied and pasted Dr. Flamm's comments. But somebody was wrong somewhere, and I return to my original premise: we can't use it against our adversaries until and unless we do better ourselves.

[tracer]

he who was making tortured metaphors about glass houses and Caesar's wife should maybe look to the beam in his own eye.
He's Cyclops from the X-Men now, too? :eye-poppi

[wolfgirl]

A particular shout-out to HawkeyeMD who noticed my 2 misspellings and 2 mis-used commas, and one missing comma. However, I'm confused by the [indicate abbreviation with apostrophe]. Where should I have put the apostrophe, and why?Since you abbreviated the word "excuse," you should have used an apostrophe to indicate such.

'Scuse me...

[tkingdoll]

Note: I haven't even read the commentary, so I don't know if Randi is guilty of any of the things the OP suggests. I also mostly agree with teek, though I admit that [sic] can be sarcastic if used in a certain way. Agian, I don't know that Randi's use was such, however.

That's what this comes down to. We can all hold opinions about what Randi might have meant, or attribute motives to him by reading between the lines, but in reality none of us have a clue if he means "[sic]" sarcastically or not.

But if anyone is particularly desperate to know, I'm sure a quick email to him would solve this.

[billyb1012]

Thanks to wolfgirl. Yes, I suppose I should have placed the apostrophe there, but when violating linguistic conventions intentionally in order to sound conversational, and more importantly, to avoid sounding pedantic, it's easy to cross the line. I did, and I shouldn't have.

I'm uncomfortable with tkingdoll's summation that it's a matter of opinion based on interpretation (reading between the lines). I've stated above that I probably didn't use the best example to illustrate my point, and I regret that I haven't the time or inclination to search past commentaries for better examples, but I will be more alert for them in the future.

I know that memory is often faulty, but I'm quite sure I've read passages in the commentaries that would support my remark that the use of [sic] is sometimes used "gleefully", i.e., as a weapon. If I see no evidence of it henceforth ( I certainly saw no misuse of it in this week's commentary ), I'll bow, and admit I overreacted.

Until then, I'll just read and be grateful there's a forum for those of us who hope that reason might triumph over superstition.

p.s. wolfgirl: re: your signature: if memory serves, it was 1993.

[billyb1012]

[quote=HawkeyeMD;2381452]Nonsense. The post absolutely was about poor spelling, grammar and punctuation. The OP was pointing out that Randi himself made grammatical errors while posting a verbatim quote from the Sniffex CEO, in which the OP interpreted the usage of "sic" as being sarcastic. OP made several grammatical and spelling errors himself, which I then pointed out.

OP's point was not about equal treatment, it was about his/her perception that Randi (aka 'Dr. Flamm') was treating the SniffexCEO with contempt while also making these egregious errors *himself*. OP also mentions an error of fact that Randi made some time ago.

Somehow I overlooked the first sentence of the second paragraph in my previous replies, and I must strongly disagree. My point was most definitely about equal treatment, and my references to the spelling and grammar of the cited passages were meant to illustrate that opinion.

[wolfgirl]

p.s. wolfgirl: re: your signature: if memory serves, it was 1993.Hmm...I think it was earlier than that. I used to have the comic strip containing it up on my door at my previous job, and I've been at my current job since late 1992.

[wolfgirl]

Hmm...I think it was earlier than that. I used to have the comic strip containing it up on my door at my previous job, and I've been at my current job since late 1992.Omigosh...I just went looking for it on google, and I found out there's a Dilbert book with that title! I honestly, truly never knew that! It was just my favorite Dilbert strip.

In it, Dilbert is on a first date. The woman is telling him about how she believes crystals have healing powers. She says something to the effect of "I have no scientific evidence that they can heal, but it's my point of view that they do." To which he replies..."When did ignorance become a point of view?"