To refuse to engage with anyone who uses of instead of have?

[ExitPursuedByAKoalaBear]

That's it.

I very much hate when people say "well I usually do that of an evening!". Or of a Tuesday! Gaaaaaah!

I have two friends on fb who use this form. Both are teachers (one of media studies and English) in prestigious and expensive fee - paying secondary schools.

Everyday. Maybe this is not the thread for you.

Looks fine thanks.

Ooh bugger. Are you being clever?

Oh, joy.

Are people honestly unaware this is a really shitty kind of thread to start? How the fuck would you feel if you were one of those people who makes mistakes?

And those who admit to binning job applications with errors, as if it's something to be particularly proud of, should take a long hard look at themselves.

Why on earth not bin those job applications? Silly mistakes like that show a lack of attention to detail, and it is the applicant's own fault for not taking proper care or pride in their work over things.

A manager I once worked for said that so many problems could be avoided if people could just speak or write proper English.

Don't even get me started on text speak. Grrrrrrr! I can't even be bothered to read those posts.

Of course if you work in a job where it is necessary to select people with perfect proofreading skills, you may bin applications with errors. If you work in most jobs, however, you don't need people with perfect proofreading skills, and you are most likely making a lazy and possibly disablist association between proofreading skills and 'attention to detail' or 'proper care'

That said, it's not the binning that bothers me, it's the boasting about it that I find a bit shit.

So we should just accept a fall in standards?

It's not proof reading. It's just wrong. And lazy.

Well, it's not 'just wrong' or 'lazy'.

One argument here is that English evolves - at some stage, chances are, 'would of' will become 'correct'. So in that sense, yes, probably we have to accept language will continue to change.

The other argument is, despite your ignorance, it can be a proofreading issue. Why do you imagine not?

Excuse me for cutting to the chase (I do get sucked into these threads a lot), but to put my cards on the table: I work damn hard to proofreading my posts as and when I can. It is actually quite difficult. Yes, I could easily write 'could of,' because for me, it's a homophone with 'could've' and I tend to confuse homophones when I'm tying, just like a lot of other dyslexics.

If you don't - fair enough. Lucky you.

But why judge people who're disabled? Because that is what you are doing. You may imagine that disabled people will read your nasty, judgemental posts and think 'oh, I'm sure she only meant to have a go at genuinely lazy, poorly educated people, not me'. But I assure you, we don't: we read your posts and we go away and feel shit.

I have three degrees in English Lit, and I'm about to start teaching Oxbridge undergrads next term. I am not lazy, poorly educated or stupid. It wouldn't, in my view, be ok for you to mock me if I were, anyway.

I tell you what I am though: right now, I am feeling really shit because I clicked on your post and it made me feel totally inadequate, because I know I miss-type things quite a bit. So thanks a bunch for that, eh?

Well, it's not 'just wrong' or 'lazy'.

One argument here is that English evolves - at some stage, chances are, 'would of' will become 'correct'. So in that sense, yes, probably we have to accept language will continue to change.

The other argument is, despite your ignorance, it can be a proofreading issue. Why do you imagine not?

Excuse me for cutting to the chase (I do get sucked into these threads a lot), but to put my cards on the table: I work damn hard to proofreading my posts as and when I can. It is actually quite difficult. Yes, I could easily write 'could of,' because for me, it's a homophone with 'could've' and I tend to confuse homophones when I'm tying, just like a lot of other dyslexics.

If you don't - fair enough. Lucky you.

But why judge people who're disabled? Because that is what you are doing. You may imagine that disabled people will read your nasty, judgemental posts and think 'oh, I'm sure she only meant to have a go at genuinely lazy, poorly educated people, not me'. But I assure you, we don't: we read your posts and we go away and feel shit.

I have three degrees in English Lit, and I'm about to start teaching Oxbridge undergrads next term. I am not lazy, poorly educated or stupid. It wouldn't, in my view, be ok for you to mock me if I were, anyway.

I tell you what I am though: right now, I am feeling really shit because I clicked on your post and it made me feel totally inadequate, because I know I miss-type things quite a bit. So thanks a bunch for that, eh?

Yes, the 'disablist card'.

Excuse me for calling you out on being disablist, so very unfair of me.

Well the day 'would of' becomes correct is the day I give up. And no doubt you will be happy to see me go, with all the issues that I have that I don't talk about on here.

JHFC

LDR......come on ,you can hold your own in many a discussion on other threads, and ones that sometimes make others feel inadequate, so don't come on a lighthearted thread & do the hurt thing.

Just ignore the thread!

YANBU. There is no excuse.

"English evolves - at some stage, chances are, 'would of' will become 'correct'"

Oh yes. I'm totally expecting the the verb to have to soon become to of. Look out for:

I of a pen.
You of a car.
He ofs a pencil.
etc...

Or maybe not.

Arf @ "disablist"

Yuck. What a mean-spirited topic for a thread (and an appallingly punctuated title too).

Ooh err this thread has gone all serious. I honestly thought it was a joke.

But... Why on earth not bin those job applications? Silly mistakes like that show a lack of attention to detail, and it is the applicant's own fault for not taking proper care or pride in their work over things.

That shows total ignorance to me and a lack of understanding that not everyone has had the same level of education.

Of course it depends on the job they're applying for, but to assume it's down to lack of attention to detail/not taking pride, rather than the education they received or any other underlying problems (that would not affect their capability to do the job) is very ignorant imo.

floundering - I'm sorry if I made you or someone else feel inadequate but I really don't think I go aroun being casually disablist. And I'm not 'doing the hurt thing'. I'm trying to explain that for me this isn't lighthearted. It's horrible.

cote - come on. You know perfectly well how language evolves, don't you? Verbs do change. It's not a big deal. If 'I'm called' can replace 'Ich hatte', I don't see why 'of' mightn't replace 'have'.

YANBU, I'm sure they won't be missing out on much.

You find disablism especially funny, cote? How charming.

Oh dear ....seems we can't have a bit of light hearted bitchyness about others these days without somebody Terribly Serious taking offence.

yawn

time for bed said Zebedee.........................

LRD you need to take a chill pill.
People are allowed to express their frustrations about grammatical wrongdoings without you insinuating it is a personal attack.

I'm sure that some spelling/grammatical errors are down to dyslexia or other disabilities but the majority are probably due to laziness, bad education and/or lack of concern for upholding standard practices.

When you get an essay from one of your new students that is peppered with bad grammar, spelling mistakes and colloquialism are you going to overlook it because 'English has evolved' or are you going to say nothing at all because it might make the student 'feel bad.'