Are you having difficulty understanding Scott's message or intent?
I assume Scott's either dumb or careless. If public communication isn't your thing, how hard is it to find someone to proofread your message when you're working at a corporation? In either case he's not the person Adobe should have handling a PR situation.
> I think a lot of time is wasted on perfecting spelling/grammar because of comments like the one above.
I'm very sympathetic to an engineer or scientist having issues like this, perhaps working in fields where people from all over the world will be working together. On the other hand, if you're working in customer care, written and verbal communication is your thing. If you're not good at it, that reflects on you and your company and the seriousness with which they take the customer care function.
Poor communication started the problems here with this customer so it is an especially touchy subject for Adobe. Hence the way people are reacting.
edit: wow, mhurron, why not interact with what people have actually written in its full and intended context instead of assuming the worst about people and knocking over a strawman?
Because everyone's first and best language is English. I guess someone needs to welcome the US as a member of the rest of the world.
> Hence the way people are reacting.
No, people are going grammar nazi on the message because it makes them feel more important. It's the same reason you're nitpicking here.
Are you sure about that? Scour any comments section for 10 minutes and it should be clear that not enough time is being used to perfect spelling/grammar.
>Are you having difficulty understanding Scott's message or intent?
No, but that doesn't mean we should settle for the lowest common denominator.
"Lowest common denominator" is what people say when they don't understand what the original term means, and think "lowest" must be worse than "greatest".
See also: "could care less".
There is a loose commonality in the usage but the term "lowest common denominator" as used here is not the mathematical term. GCF is a mathematical analogy but doesn't work as a direct usage as it would be unclear what the "factor" is that the people are to hold in common whilst in the original phrase it's clear that the denominator (standard) to be held in common is the sum of language understood [and used correctly] by all. It is lowest because greater ones can be achieved by excluding proportions of the population that has been used to establish the standard.
Whilst I couldn't care less the real meaning I've always assumed that "I could care less" is a shorthand for something along the lines of "I could care less but that's too much effort given how little I care about it". YMMV.
All language can be misunderstood by those who wish to misunderstand it.
E&OE.
For a typical blog post, the amount of effort required to get it right is minuscule in comparison to the number of eyes which will (hopefully) read it. For a public relations employee, it's just a matter of professionalism.
When talking with friends I'd probably find that kind of banter (when used in moderation) to be amusing, but I expect a business person to take the time to proofread and spellcheck a message before sending it to me. I'm paying them money, they should show me a little courtesy.
Absolutely not.
