Quote by redhot363236
My observation isn't so much a difference in grammar, as it is that the British use a more formal form of the language. There are, however differences in spelling and punctuation
Quote by CleverFox
Do you think fixing technical errors makes the story better? I think it just fixes technical errors. A bad story sucks no matter how wonderful the grammar may be. All you are doing is making the story more easily understood.
Now if you (OWA and Liz) feel this makes a story better then you can feel free to pat yourselves on the back. But don't expect me to thank you for anything but helping me with the technical aspects.
You can’t truly call yourself peaceful unless you are capable of violence. If you’re not capable of violence, you’re not peaceful. You’re harmless.
Quote by CleverFox
To Liz and OWA,
Just after I posted my last remark I realized how rude it was and I changed it to be more polite. Unfortunately WWM had already quoted it and the two of you had already seen the original post. I apologize for my rudeness.
I will say again that a crappy story is a crappy story no matter how good the grammar is. The verifiers do help the writers make the stories more understandable but the verifiers do not make the story better. This is a fine distinction. I know I could rewrite any Shakespeare story and make it more easily understood but I know that wouldn't make it better.
Quote by CleverFox
To Liz and OWA,
Just after I posted my last remark I realized how rude it was and I changed it to be more polite. Unfortunately WWM had already quoted it and the two of you had already seen the original post. I apologize for my rudeness.
I will say again that a crappy story is a crappy story no matter how good the grammar is. The verifiers do help the writers make the stories more understandable but the verifiers do not make the story better. This is a fine distinction. I know I could rewrite any Shakespeare story and make it more easily understood but I know that wouldn't make it better.
Quote by CleverFox
Sprite, I understand and agree with what you are saying for the most part. If a story can't be understood then it really isn't a story. I am also sorry and do apologize for my rudeness, that was why I almost immediately changed that post but I wasn't fast enough.
I do resent anybody that think he or she has made my story "better" by pointing out technical errors. I appreciate the help on the technical aspects of my story.
If I were to take somebody else's story that was flawed grammatically and rewrite that story would it be better? And I mean if I just fixed the spelling errors and punctuation but didn't really change the main thrust of the story.
I don't really think it would make the story better. The story would just be more easily understood.
I see OWA read what I said about Shakespeare and my point is that changing something won't necessarily make it better. How can anybody possibly make Shakespeare better? Of course if you read some of his plays he does have huge plot holes but it is the poetry that makes it great.
Quote by CleverFox
Sprite, I understand and agree with what you are saying for the most part. If a story can't be understood then it really isn't a story. I am also sorry and do apologize for my rudeness, that was why I almost immediately changed that post but I wasn't fast enough.
I do resent anybody that think he or she has made my story "better" by pointing out technical errors. I appreciate the help on the technical aspects of my story.
If I were to take somebody else's story that was flawed grammatically and rewrite that story would it be better? And I mean if I just fixed the spelling errors and punctuation but didn't really change the main thrust of the story.
I don't really think it would make the story better. The story would just be more easily understood.
I see OWA read what I said about Shakespeare and my point is that changing something won't necessarily make it better. How can anybody possibly make Shakespeare better? Of course if you read some of his plays he does have huge plot holes but it is the poetry that makes it great.
There was somebody that thought King Lear should have a happy ending to it and rewrote the ending. My Shakespeare professor read the rewrite to us. It was horrible.
You can’t truly call yourself peaceful unless you are capable of violence. If you’re not capable of violence, you’re not peaceful. You’re harmless.
Quote by one_winged_angel
And back to square one with the improving thing. I don't know what your issue is with verifiers. But a storie dat luks lyke dis iz anoyin to red and yes we do get stories that look like that.
As far as I recall, nobody tried to redo your story, only tried to help you fix it, if you don't want advice on how to fix your story, either don't send it with errors (proofreading helps), or don't send it in.
Quote by CleverFox
Why did you bring up my story here? Isn't that personal? I have not said anything personal about anybody else.
You can’t truly call yourself peaceful unless you are capable of violence. If you’re not capable of violence, you’re not peaceful. You’re harmless.
Quote by one_winged_angel
You brought it up yourself:
"I do resent anybody that think he or she has made my story "better" by pointing out technical errors."
Quote by sprite
ahem...
Now if you (OWA and Liz) feel this makes a story better then you can feel free to pat yourselves on the back. But don't expect me to thank you for anything but helping me with the technical aspects.
After reading the replies from OWA and Liz I see the error of my ways and I now realize that none of the people that have posted stories here on Lush could possibly have teached their full potential with out the help of the verifiers.
We need the verifiers badly.
Quote by clum
Correct grammar and punctuation do not necessarily improve a storyline (although they can), but they undoubtedly improve the quality of a piece of writing, i.e., make a story better.
This whole fucking argument is semantics. The bottom line is, if you submit technically inaccurate stories, we'll do our best to help you to fix them. If you don't want our help, that's fine (we're plenty busy as it is), but don't expect us to verify your incomprehensible stories.
We don't expect a lot of thanks for what we do, but we certainly don't need to be taking shit from "writers" who don't know a comma splice from a coordinating conjunction.
Quote by one_winged_angel. You accepted my apology OWA.
See sprite's post
Quote by CleverFox
I did not mention any specific person.
You can’t truly call yourself peaceful unless you are capable of violence. If you’re not capable of violence, you’re not peaceful. You’re harmless.
Quote by one_winged_angel
Yes I did, that does not mean I will automatically agree with everything else you post.
Quote by CleverFox
Sprite, I understand and agree with what you are saying for the most part. If a story can't be understood then it really isn't a story. I am also sorry and do apologize for my rudeness, that was why I almost immediately changed that post but I wasn't fast enough.
I do resent anybody that think he or she has made my story "better" by pointing out technical errors. I appreciate the help on the technical aspects of my story.
If I were to take somebody else's story that was flawed grammatically and rewrite that story would it be better? And I mean if I just fixed the spelling errors and punctuation but didn't really change the main thrust of the story.
I don't really think it would make the story better. The story would just be more easily understood.
I see OWA read what I said about Shakespeare and my point is that changing something won't necessarily make it better. How can anybody possibly make Shakespeare better? Of course if you read some of his plays he does have huge plot holes but it is the poetry that makes it great.
There was somebody that thought King Lear should have a happy ending to it and rewrote the ending. My Shakespeare professor read the rewrite to us. It was horrible.
Quote by Liz
