Poor grammar is disappointing and decidedly distracting in formal audio reviews.

I see little useful or interesting commentary on the OP's original post, but a lot of would-be clever puns and nonsense. Too bad, because it's an interesting subject. I do see that apparently many members aren't bothered by poor grammar.

I can barely put together a coherent thought when reading anything by Jason Kennedy, editor of the-ear.net.  It is as if he does not understand the limitation of use of a comma.  Do the English really have that much of a different implementation of the english language versus Americans?

Actually, sometimes one will write in a particular style that emulates an eclectic (if you will) speaking style or an involved story with many facets. Sometimes, you have to go with the flow. If it's not for you, it's not for you, but, it's not like we're turning out flexible, well read readers (or listeners) anymore. I'm guessing that in the not too distant future, 'tweets' and Instagram posts will be as nuanced a reading adventure as Americans, born and not yet born, will ever see.

A person's character is revealed by their communication. I spend quite a bit of time editing my reviews for Dagogo.com, sometimes nearly as much as the time involved in writing the article. I often pore over them anywhere from three to five times entirely in order refine my thoughts and to purge any improper grammar that I discover. I understand that my reviews are essentially untouched by the editor, versus others that need much cleaning. I am unpaid for all this, so there is a temptation to not execute at a very high level. However, I recognize that it is a privilege to be able to have gear sent for review (NOT "free" to keep, to clarify for detractors or cynical types). This is not complaint, but simple explanation of how extensively editing is involved in my writing process. I believe my articles would be poorer if I did not spend so much time on editing. 

Editing is time consuming and tedious. I have written one book and am in the process of editing another. I tend to underestimate the time it will take to thoroughly edit the work. I recall seeing several times the sentiment by authors that editing is a tedious process. I concur. It's not enjoyable, and I believe some authors place too much pride in creation of thought and not enough in proper expression of it. 

One of the reasons I spend so much time on self-editing is that I wish for my expressions to be read precisely as I have written. Editing can alter the sense of the text to a significant degree. If I assume the role of editor and produce a nearly flawless copy of the review, then my work is more likely to emerge intact. I also consider it respect for the readership to spend the time to produce a beautiful piece of writing. Also, as a Christian I intend to show that I put a great deal of thought into my articles and wish for them to be high quality. For instance, rather than leave the transition headings to the editor, I write my own because I consider them important segues. I wish for the article to appear precisely as I submit it, and often it does. Poor communication and sloppy execution would militate against these goals.  

Even in replies to threads I do not simply post them, but review and edit them. I wish to have a reputation of being a good communicator. We now live in an age of instant communication, and some dismiss precision from a sense of urgency.

If we do not know the educational level and whether the communicator has English as their native language I suggest we, "put the best construction on everything," versus snipe. I shudder to think what form my thoughts would take were I to attempt expressing them in a different language! I certainly would wish for others to be charitable! I think our English as second (third, etc.) language contributors here communicate quite well considering the maze of rules in the English language. 

@gents,

"Sometimes, you have to go with the flow. If it's not for you, it's not for you, but, it's not like we're turning out flexible, well read readers (or listeners) anymore. I'm guessing that in the not too distant future, 'tweets' and Instagram posts will be as nuanced a reading adventure as Americans, born and not yet born, will ever see."



Yes, this is a facet of all literature as it endlessly gets reinterpreted through the ages.

It also explains why we may all have different favourite authors.

Chaucer, Dickens, Orwell, Miller, Proust, Wells, Maugham, Fitzgerald = ok

Shakespeare, Shaw, Woolf, Joyce, Beckett, Burroughs, Kerouac = not so ok.

But that's just me, YMMV.

At work we have a plain English department dedicated to promoting good grammar and clarity of meaning via elimination of jargon etc (or at least the meaning they want to convey) but as of yet I cannot recall  ever reading anything of interest in their memos.

Thanks to those who mentioned my comment.

In case others think I am wrong, our former governor and legislature wanted to reduce or eliminate state scholarships to state universities for those star A+ 4.0 students who qualify IF they do not major in a money-making subject.  As he stated, "We don't need any more anthropology majors."

(HINT:  His DAUGHTER majored in anthropology.  Guess blood is NOT thicker than a wad of bills slipped into your pocket at a "fund raiser.")

This genius, who committed the largest medicare fraud in history, is now one of our Senators.  The bigger the thief, the more likely you are to be elected in our state, anyway.  He will run for President, I am sure, and may win.  Why not?  Money talks louder than grammatically correct usage any day.

Oh, he has over $250 million dollars in the bank, so fraud pays, but hey, he is NOT an elitist.  How could he be as a former master thief?  All he cares about are the "little people."  You believe that, right?  Right!

Cheers!