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


I find the majority of formal audio reviews across numerous publications to be easy reads.  However, 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?  Does anybody else struggle to read certain editors' work?
Ag insider logo xs@2xmganga
@wrm57 "exorcised"

@acresverde , Were you correcting me or simply straining after a homophonic pun? I do hope the latter because "exercised about" is proper if idiomatic usage, meaning "agitated about," whereas "exorcised about" would be a semantic and grammatical mystery. Just sayin’....
@richopp , welcome to the new empire of fungible ignorance! Reminds me of when the Texas state legislature floated a bill 10 years ago to outlaw the teaching of critical thinking in high school. The stated reason? Because it encourages the questioning of authority. Can’t have that!
Texas just did it again with the canceling of a talk on a new book, Forget the Alamo: The Rise and Fall of an American Myth, at the Texas State History Museum in Austin, Tx., just hours before it was to begin.

All the best,
Nonoise
As a grammarian and freelance proofreader, I say that poor grammar is disappointing and decidedly distracting in anything, especially anything online.
I'm old enough to remember back when it was considered proper to correct bad grammar right on the spot. It was never considered bad manners or insulting to do so and when I was corrected, it was not a big deal. In fact, I appreciated it and endeavored to remember it.

The English language is a beautiful thing to behold and I wish I were a lot better at it.

All the best,
Nonoise