Re: Turing Test Meaningless?

[rubywand@aol.com (RUBYWAND)]

In article <4me70l$9r@news.vanderbilt.edu>, lesherjt@vuse.vanderbilt.edu
(John Lesher) writes:

>.... THERE ARE NO GRAMMATICAL RULES
>ON THE INTERNET.  
>
>	When you're trying to put across an idea -- ANY IDEA -- you
>use any method to your disposal.  You DO try to make your point as 
>clear as possible.  This is why there are rules in English -- to make
>transmitted ideas as clear as possible.  But it is NOT THE END OF THE
>WORLD if you BREAK THE RULES.  As long as the idea you are trying to
>transmit is sent, WHO CARES about grammar.  Or speling :-).

     Accurate transmission of ideas via violation of grammar makes sense
when there is no alternative. However, each violation has the potential
for damaging the language structure as recognized by those receiving the
transmission.

     No grammatical rules on the internet? Granted, we do not pounce upon
each instance of incorrect grammar. Such errors are too frequent; and,
there is often no reason to expect that a correction would do any good.

      You say the structure of language is important to clear
communication. Well, then, it may not be such a bad thing that, from time
to time, someone's poor grammar provokes a complaint by a grammar
watchdog. We, of course, can stand to one side like 'the good cop' and
express sympathy. Meanwhile, the 'bad cop' watchdog is performing a useful
service in defending the structure we all depend upon.  

     Aside from the pure bother of being a grammar watchdog, we tolerate
poor grammar out of politeness and because we do not wish to discourage
grammatically challenged users from participating. Also, one does not wish
to stimulate others to examine ones own grammar useage (and spelling) too
closely. Even so, tolerance does not mean that the rules of grammar are
suspended. 

Rubywand