RC Cola, I just saw your post where you did not technically sign up until after you made the post that I quoted, even though the error was made after the 1st of January. I'll leave it up to some of the Seniors as to whether or not my kill counts.
damn i'm out already, i was hoping to last a night, but i didn't. shall we do a spelling contest in Dutch maybe i will win atleast if Ace doe not anter
OK, I want to add my contribution to the "theorizing" and "theorising" debate (it's crucial to me, since I also speak English English, and not American English). I don't have a dictionary at work to check, but I believe that in the UK, both spellings of these type of words are listed, as alternative spellings of the same word. It's my opinion that if a word is listed in the dictionary, it isn't misspelt. I think it's the same with "to" and "too". They are both correctly spelled words, it is the context that defines whether they are appropriate. If we are going to to kill on that basis, we also have to kill when someone uses "infer" in place of "imply", "affect" in place of "effect" and so on. I vote that we stick to spelling, and not grammar, but then what does my opinion count for?
Yea but you cant take someone out for not putting a captial "I" like some people have, and using words inproperly doesnt make it spelled incorrectly, and if someone doesnt put a ' in can't for example thats not a spelling error thats a grammar error and people have tried to kill people for it.
How is that a kill? This is a spelling only contest as outlined by htownhero. Not grammar or content contest. He added an extra "to" but imo that shouldn't be a kill.
I do not think it is a grammar issue when someone leaves out an apostrophe. For example, it's and its has two different meanings. If one is trying to say "it's a lovely day outside" and instead says "its a lovely day outside", then technically, they have misspelt it's (its). Another example: Confusing desert and dessert. If I say "I've been through the dessert on a horse with no name", then that should be a kill because I spelled the word wrong (should be desert) with regards to its intended meaning. Make sense?
Technically, spelling can not, cant, is a spelling error. Cant and can't have two different definitions and meanings. Just like to/too and its/it's.
Yea but i mean its cant really be spelled wrong sure it can have 2 diff meanings, besides that should slide because its so common on the internet you find people not using apostrophes in something like that, at least thats what i see, and desert and dessert i know that i mean at least you can tell that u misspelled it, but leaving out apostrophes in something should be considered a grammar error IMO. I am out so it doesnt matter thats what i just think should be laid out right off the bat next time.
Agreed. It is easy to tell which version of a word should have been used by context. but the point I made above has more to do with accidently adding additional words into a sentence where they don't belong. heh..."been thru the *dessert*(sic) on a horse with no name" What kind of dessert would that be?
OK, am I out? My mistake was definitely grammatical. I thought grammatical errors were specifically not included.
Last time we played this we stuck to an honor system (see puedlfor) and proof via an agreed upon online dictionary, like you would do in scrabble. We also stopped these gray area "kill" arguments by adopting another scrabble rule where you are out if your accusation was wrong. For instance, American Heritage and Webster's do not support the spelling of "theorise," but a collection of dictionaries used by dictionary.com add it to a "[syn]" list at the very bottom of their "theorize" listing, but do not give it its own full entry with all verb forms, thus don't actually list "theorising." Anyhoot, if you want to use www.dictionary.com, I can agree that that is not a kill by Rockets R' Us, but shouldn't count as a wrong accusation by him, either, since no dictionary was chosen, yet. my opinion is: <b>(1) Stick to obvious kills, (2) use the honor system when you misuse a word by wrongly using a similar word spelling, using wrong tense, or otherwise mistyping what you meant to type, like "to to" vs just "to," (3) and use scrabble rules that require challengers to prove it via an agreed dictionary.</b> btw: common contractions and hypenated words are all in the dictionary, so you can prove all those, if you choose a dictionary to use.
I have no problem with being eliminated for a post that was written before I signed up. I do not want to have an unfair advantage or be a problem. However, I had always thought that the incorrect usage of "it's" and "its" was a grammar mistake. In my opinion, it is like "there," "their," and "they're." If I were to get "there" and "their" mixed up, I would count it as a grammar mistake instead of saying I did not spell the word right. Same goes for "affect" and "effect." But that is just my opinion. I always forget which one to use, "its" or "it's" so it is unlikely that this will be the last time this comes up. Most of the other things I do well at, like the "there" thing and the "desert" thing. From now on, I will try to write out the words instead of using contractions.
Right oh. Based on the honour system that heypartner describes, I'll take myself out of the game. I'm not going to put "My spelling sucks" in my signature though, because I didn't misspell anything...
Here's a quetion: If someone posts an article written by someone else and there's a spelling error, are you eliminated due to the original author's mistake? Technically, you only copy and pasted. However, if there is a mistake in your post, shouldn't that count as yours? Of course we could aways just email the author to let them know they've been eliminated from a contest they didn't volunteer to participate in: Dear Mr. Buckley, Sorry, you have been eliminated from the ClutchCity.Net Spelling survival Contest. Due to your incompetnce, Ive been eliminated too. Thanks a lot buddy.
