[Stefan]

Your signature claims that you are the official "tsc typoist"

I have several pieces of evidence to dispute this claim.

Exhibit a.)

Stefan is now known as Typo

exhibit b.)

I invite you to do a !qsearch for "stefan" or "typo". You will get many that are the result of my bad typos.

exhibit c.)

"qhoset". If you don't know what I'm talking about, you clearly haven't been at TSC long enough to even -consider- giving yourself an "official title", especially one so clearly belonging to other members. If you do recognize it, you'll realize it was a string of typos in which I typoed the same phrase four times consecutively. Either way, you're clearly jumping to ridiculous conclusions to call yourself the official typoist of tsc.

I have presented my case. I am suing you for $500,000 aus or the decision to remove the title of official typoist from your signature. I will accept whichever settlement comes first.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Mckenzie.

[Spinballwizard]

I hereby present evidence to back up exhibit c.

http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=395.msg20099#msg20099

[werster]

Your signature claims that you are the official "tsc typoist"

First things first Stefan! It has the title of "offical" not "official"

Stefan is now known as Typo

You right and well know that means jack squat and won't hold up anywhere

If you do recognize it, you'll realize it was a string of typos in which I typoed the same phrase four times consecutively.

And this just means nothing, I have typoed the same phrase a good and well 6 times, and -still- not corrected myself.

Either way, you're clearly jumping to ridiculous conclusions to call yourself the official typoist of tsc.

-I'm- jumping to conclusions? I'd like to note that no where does it say that the typoist title is official, nor tsc, you have made that up yourself! So you can go ahead and waste your $500,000 Stefan because your evidence is worthless.
Face it, you've got absolutely nothing to support your case, Stefan.

[Stefan]

First things first Stefan! It has the title of "offical" not "official"

The "offical" is clearly a typo for official, done intentionally to play fun at being the "official typoist". Any realistic reader would infer the correct meaning from "offical", as there is no other default meaning to infer. Offical is not a word, and so its meaning (until otherwise defined), is automatically defaulted to the word it most clearly resembles from spelling and context. The obvious conclusion here is to assume "official". As such, you are calling yourself the official typoist, no two ways about it.

You right and well know that means jack squat and won't hold up anywhere

No, what I know is that it makes this a clear case of identity theft. I identify by my typos, as the name "typo" clearly suggests. Usernames are meant to characterize the person who is using them. using "typo" obvious implies I make frequent typos, and calling yourself any title with "typo" in the name (such as offical typoist) is stealing my identity and potentially redirecting attention or questions I'd be getting to you.

And this just means nothing, I have typoed the same phrase a good and well 6 times, and -still- not corrected myself.

Let's see your proof? Anecdotal evidence isn't going to hold up on the internet, where nearly everything is archived. I have hard, physical documentation of my typos, which were so familiar to regulars at TSC that regulars like Spinballwizard were able to immediately vouch for me and give the data. Your typos aren't as well known, and are not documented.

-I'm- jumping to conclusions? I'd like to note that no where does it say that the typoist title is official, nor tsc, you have made that up yourself!

If you are unable to see how the "typoist" title is given the defining modifier "TSC", then you are unable to comprehend basic sentence structure. If you say "tsc's offical x and y", the modifiers "tsc offical" apply to both x and y. This is basic English. Can you not get the logic of sentence structure? If not, you're going to have a tough time logically defending yourself. Whether or not you are the "official" typoist is up for grabs, but again by context and spelling it seems very clear to any eye what you were aiming to say. Hiding behind pedantry isn't even going to help here.

So you can go ahead and waste your $500,000 Stefan because your evidence is worthless.
Face it, you've got absolutely nothing to support your case, Stefan.

My evidence is not worthless, it's concrete evidence that backs up my original accusation. You hold no argument; you're hiding behind the fact that your title of typoist has "offical" in front, as if that makes it something less than what it is. This is a clear case of identity theft. Not to mention, I base my identity off my typos (as seen by the nick "Typo"), and so when that ground is shaken from under me, I suffer severe emotional trauma.

Also, by the fact that you're telling me to waste my $500,000, I assume that you've settled for paying me $500,000? Alright, you can set up a PM to find my paypal/ address for a check. :)

[werster]

The "offical" is clearly a typo for official, done intentionally to play fun at being the "official typoist".

-clearly-, -intentionally-? And I'm still the one jumping to conclusions? With some proper research you'd find that "offical" was there before typoist even came into existeance in that signature.

No, what I know is that it makes this a clear case of identity theft. I identify by my typos, as the name "typo" clearly suggests. Usernames are meant to characterize the person who is using them. using "typo" obvious implies I make frequent typos, and calling yourself any title with "typo" in the name (such as offical typoist) is stealing my identity and potentially redirecting attention or questions I'd be getting to you.

...let's put a situation into play here. Say i name my child Dan. Does that mean every single Dan can sue me for identity theft?

Let's see your proof? Anecdotal evidence isn't going to hold up on the internet, where nearly everything is archived. I have hard, physical documentation of my typos

Oh yes because "oh look, it says i did it, I must have" is undeniable proof Stefan.

to regulars at TSC that regulars like Spinballwizard were able to immediately vouch for me and give the data.

I'm sure you could find many people at TSC that would say that I too typo Stefan

Your typos aren't as well known, and are not documented.

...Aren't as well known? I'm -suure- you could prove that one Stefan.

If you are unable to see how the "typoist" title is given the defining modifier "TSC", then you are unable to comprehend basic sentence structure. If you say "tsc's offical x and y", the modifiers "tsc offical" apply to both x and y. This is basic English. Can you not get the logic of sentence structure? If not, you're going to have a tough time logically defending yourself. Whether or not you are the "official" typoist is up for grabs, but again by context and spelling it seems very clear to any eye what you were aiming to say.

Oh you make a good point here Stefan. One major problem though. "offical" and "TSC" aren't in the same sentence as typoist!

[Magnezone]

my typos are better than your typos

you suck

no my typos are better than your typos

you suck

/topic

[Bilan]

tl;dr

stefan and werster can't type for shit

[General Throatstomper]

There's an objective, scientific method for determining who is rightfully "TSC's official typoist": count the number of typos in each claimant's argument.
werster's typos

First things first Stefan! It has the title of "offical" not "official"

In werster's opening remarks, there are two typos in as many sentences. "Things" should take an apostrophe to denote possession, and there should be a comma after "offical" to parse the two thoughts as contrasting.

You right and well know that means jack squat and won't hold up anywhere

A mistake acceptable in spoken English, but which is a typo when written. There should be two "that"'s in the first clause, the first to designate what Stefan knows and the second to represent his argument.

And this just means nothing, I have typoed the same phrase a good and well 6 times, and -still- not corrected myself.

In this context, the comma in bold is grammatically incorrect. I don't feel like explaining why. Learn standard English if you disagree.  

-I'm- jumping to conclusions? I'd like to note that no where does it say that the typoist title is official, nor tsc, you have made that up yourself! So you can go ahead and waste your $500,000 Stefan because your evidence is worthless.

Aside from its status as one of the worst examples of English writing I've ever read, this sample contains several egregious typos. The word is 'nowhere'. The phrase 'no where' is clever as it implies the definite constraint of space, but given your idea it would not be appropriate emphasis. I would explain why "nor tsc" is a typo if the idea made sense; however, it's such a glaring flaw that the exact reasoning why is completely unnecessary. Finally, 'Stefan' should be spliced with commas to avoid a run-on sentence.

-clearly-, -intentionally-? And I'm still the one jumping to conclusions? With some proper research you'd find that "offical" was there before typoist even came into existeance in that signature.

The word 'clearly' is clearly "Clearly". Existence is misspelled.

...let's put a situation into play here. Say i name my child Dan. Does that mean every single Dan can sue me for identity theft?

Two more errors in capitalization, unless he means that the letter 'i' names its child Dan...in which case there would still be a typo because the verb would require conjugation for the third person singular of the English verb 'to name'.

Oh yes because "oh look, it says i did it, I must have" is undeniable proof Stefan.

There are several ways to correctly punctuate this sentence; werster didn't use any of them. I don't consider the bolded 'i' a typo because he's trivializing the validity of Stefan's argument by making it seem childish. As he is directly addressing Stefan, werster needs to use a comma there.

I'm sure you could find many people at TSC that would say that I too typo Stefan

This sentence is a mess. werster doesn't mean that he typos the word 'Stefan', he means to tell Stefan that he often typos.

...Aren't as well known? I'm -suure- you could prove that one Stefan.

The word 'suure' is not the word 'sure'.

One major problem though. "offical" and "TSC" aren't in the same sentence as typoist!

Either there should be a colon here, or a comma after 'problem'. If werster opted for the second method, he would need to capitalize 'offical'. I consider this double-dipping, so I'll only count the one typo.

18 for werster.

Stefan's typos

I identify by my typos, as the name "typo" clearly suggests. Usernames are meant to characterize the person who is using them. using "typo" obvious implies I make frequent typos, and calling yourself any title with "typo" in the name (such as offical typoist) is stealing my identity and potentially redirecting attention or questions I'd be getting to you.

In the English language, the verb 'to identify' requires a direct object, absent in this case. Obviously, he should have capitalized the word "using" in that sentence. "Obvious" is obviously not 'obviously', when an adverbial form is required to correctly modify the action. The rest of the sentence is a trainwreck, but a stylistic one that we can't assess as the product of chronic typoing.

Let's see your proof?

There isn't a typo here. I just wanted to say that the question form was a terrible rhetorical device.

If you are unable to see how the "typoist" title is given the defining modifier "TSC", then you are unable to comprehend basic sentence structure.

Without the word 'by', the phrase "the defining modifier "TSC" becomes the direct object of the sentence. You give the modifier to the title instead of saying you can infer that the title is based on the modifier. I'd also argue the comma after "TSC" is unnecessary, but that's purely a stylistic consideration.

Also, by the fact that you're telling me to waste my $500,000, I assume that you've settled for paying me $500,000? Alright, you can set up a PM to find my paypal/ address for a check.

Unnecessary space. +1 for Stefan.

5 typos for Stefan.

There are 18 typos from werster vs. 5 typos from Typo. I opine that Stefan has outgrown his status as "tsc's offcal typoist", and the title is rightfully werster's. In his prime, Stefan was the undisputed typoist, but presently werster eclipses him in this compartment. werster isn't yet the all-time champion; he's just more prone to typos than the previously revered authority.

Edit: there's a typo in my first observation. "Thing's" expresses a contraction, there is no possession involved.

[flyby]

Well...I agree that werster typoes more than Stefan, but I also would like to point out that genus's method is flawed. Pointing out "grammatical" flaws is not pointing out typoes. <_< Get a better definition of typo, and then count. I agree with the conclusion, though. >_> That is no reason to accept a horrible argument though!

[Luxray]

This thread is lol.

[Stefan]

-clearly-, -intentionally-? And I'm still the one jumping to conclusions? With some proper research you'd find that "offical" was there before typoist even came into existeance in that signature.

So when I said that they have a correlation, I was entirely correct. Why dispute me?

...let's put a situation into play here. Say i name my child Dan. Does that mean every single Dan can sue me for identity theft?

Dan is a frequent name, "official typoist of tsc" is not. I can't create a hot dog company and say I'm the "official hot dog provider of the olympics", because it will steal business from whoever is the real hot dog provider.

Oh yes because "oh look, it says i did it, I must have" is undeniable proof Stefan.

I would say that archived chat information is pretty undisputable proof, yes.

...Aren't as well known? I'm -suure- you could prove that one Stefan.

My typos are so well known that at the sight of "qhoset" spinballwizard was able to identify the incident in question. Do you have a similarly famous typo? If not, then yes, I would argue mine are more well known.

Oh you make a good point here Stefan. One major problem though. "offical" and "TSC" aren't in the same sentence as typoist!

So, then, you're saying "And typoist" is a sentence? That is incorrect. The ellipsis, again my modern reasonable deduction of sentence structure, implies that is a continuation of the previous sentence.

Even still, if you are disputing that "offical" and "tsc" are not in the same sentence as typoist, then are you claiming that you are -not- the official tsc typoist? If so, I will take your humble concession.

Genus, failure to speak/type in logical syntax =/= typos. Werster's grammatical ignorance does not mean he makes more frequent typos, it means he's a less eloquent speaker of English.

werster, it comes down to this:

I make a point and have evidence. You say "oh yeah well good luck proving that" as a rebuttal to every point I make.

When are you going to provide evidence? Or are you going to continue hiding behind "oh yeah, like that's proof" and flyby?

[General Throatstomper]

I consider grammatical errors typos, and refuse to tolerate flyby's pedantry.

After all, if this this this this this weren't a typo, what would it be?

I think the key qualifier is determining what the author meant to write and comparing it with what they actually posted. Given this reasoning, grammatical errors are typos because they interfere with the clear reception of a thought intended for perfect transmission.

[Stefan]

But that's not a grammatical error. There's a difference between adding unnecessary commas and hitting the comma key instead of the m key. One boils down to ignorance, while the other boils down to imperfect motor skills.

Not to mention, you incorrectly counted up errors. I quote directly;

"In werster's opening remarks, there are two typos in as many sentences. "Things" should take an apostrophe to denote possession"

"Things" is not in ownership of -anything-. There should be no apostrophe.

[General Throatstomper]

One more Typo for Stefan, 6 vs. 18.

Accidentally typing a word can be a result of a poor motor skills.

There's a difference? These this seem like a clear example of my point.

Or even "this seem like a clear example of my point".

If you meant to type something, and typed it incorrectly, you typoed. If you had an idea, and that idea wasn't expressed as you thought it, you typoed.

Even ignoring grammatical errors, though, werster still has an edge. The title is rightfully werster's; I demand you delink the name 'Typo' for werster's personal use, and adopt "Second" or "Milquetoast" as a sign of respect.

[werster]

Man, I wish i was an outside party here. :( Just so then I could say 'Stefan's an idiot, werster is just saying he typos lots' It's not like you have the title right next to you and I'm challenging it. You merely have a nickname that is part of a title that I have randomly given myself, and you decide to make something out of it. So, my dear Stefan, I will not remove this from my signature, and seriously, good luck getting a court to accept this case.

Oh, also genus, you are hilarious in your "proper" English, but you have completely missed the point <_<

[Alondite]

Typoing has nothing to do with grammatical errors genus. Why? Well, a typo is a mistake that you did not mean to make, where grammatical errors are often done without the typist knowing that he/she is making a mistake.  The typist simply does not have a strong grasp on what is considered "correct grammar."

A typo is a typographical error, which is defined as "an error in printed or typewritten matter resulting from striking the improper key of a keyboard, from mechanical failure, or the like."  Quite simply, it's an accident.  Grammatical errors are done intentionally, not knowing that they are errors, and that makes them quite different. 

Also if you are toying with the idea, I know there are numerous grammatical errors in this very post, but I don't care (because it's just a forum post) so don't bother to point them out.

[Werey]

i still my typos were the best :(

Edit: I still think my typos were the best :(

[Spinballwizard]

Just skimming, I think genus is confusing typos with grammatical errors when they clearly are not the same thing. >_>

[Bilan]

tl;dr addendum

genus is a noob

[Luxray]

well if you want to see how horrible typos and grammar can get... go look at my first post.

[EngiNerd]

Wait wait woah woah woah.....

Stefan = Typo?

* Minus the Antiporcupine ducks HARD ... and considers staying there

[General Throatstomper]

Typoing has nothing to do with grammatical errors   genus. Why? Well, a typo is a mistake that you did not mean to make, where grammatical errors are often done without the typist knowing thathe/she is making a mistake. The typist simply does not have a strong grasp on[n] what is considered "correct grammar."

A typo is a typographical error, which is defined as "an error in printed or typewritten matter resulting from striking the improper key of a keyboard[glow],[/glow] from mechanical failure, or the like."  Quite simply, it's an accident.  Grammatical errors are done intentionally, not knowing that they are errors, and that makes them quite different.

Also if you are toying with the idea,I know there are numerous grammatical errors in this very post, but I don't care (because it's just a forum post) so don't bother to point them out.

Why is your definition correct? I would argue that labeling a typo something so simple as a simple keystroke is myopic enough to exclude several mistakes without a label. Typos aren't merely errors conscious to their author; what if the writer thinks 'everywhere' is spelled 'everywere' and spells the former? That's still a typo. I apply this same principal to grammatical errors: the mistake you make is still a mistake whether you know it or not. Establishing your frame of reference as conventional standard English, you would be accountable for these grammatical errors. Or typos. This this is a typo, even thought I think that it makes sense to repeat the word 'this'. So that sentence is, even though I'm confusing the words 'that' and 'this'. You're splitting hairs into fourths. If you came up with a less verbose term for grammatical typos than 'grammatical errors', I would recognize the difference. Until then, they're the same thing!

Though it's too late for me to avoid pointing out your typos.

[flyby]

What is the word "misspelling" for, if it just falls under typo? That is a ridiculous supposition. If someone thought the word was spelled "everywere" and typed it "everywhere" on accident, "everywhere" would be a typo.

[Werey]

Officialy a Ball licker :(

[Alondite]

Typoing has nothing to do with grammatical errors   genus. Why? Well, a typo is a mistake that you did not mean to make, where grammatical errors are often done without the typist knowing thathe/she is making a mistake. The typist simply does not have a strong grasp on[n] what is considered "correct grammar."

A typo is a typographical error, which is defined as "an error in printed or typewritten matter resulting from striking the improper key of a keyboard[glow],[/glow] from mechanical failure, or the like."  Quite simply, it's an accident.  Grammatical errors are done intentionally, not knowing that they are errors, and that makes them quite different.

Also if you are toying with the idea,I know there are numerous grammatical errors in this very post, but I don't care (because it's just a forum post) so don't bother to point them out.

Why is your definition correct? I would argue that labeling a typo something so simple as a simple keystroke is myopic enough to exclude several mistakes without a label. Typos aren't merely errors conscious to their author; what if the writer thinks 'everywhere' is spelled 'everywere' and spells the former? That's still a typo. I apply this same principal to grammatical errors: the mistake you make is still a mistake whether you know it or not. Establishing your frame of reference as conventional standard English, you would be accountable for these grammatical errors. Or typos. This this is a typo, even thought I think that it makes sense to repeat the word 'this'. So that sentence is, even though I'm confusing the words 'that' and 'this'. You're splitting hairs into fourths. If you came up with a less verbose term for grammatical typos than 'grammatical errors', I would recognize the difference. Until then, they're the same thing!

Though it's too late for me to avoid pointing out your typos.

Because it's not my definition.  It's what the dictionary defines as a typo.

[flyby]

Oh, you are going to open up another can of worms by bringing the dictionary into this.

[Alondite]

What do worms have to do with any of this? And since when do they come in a can?

[Selphos]

What do worms have to do with any of this? And since when do they come in a can?

Clearly Alondite knows absolutly nothing about fishing
yeah I noticed >_>

[SonicAD]

On a side note...

TAKE YOUR TURN IN RISK

[Alondite]

What do worms have to do with any of this? And since when do they come in a can?

Clearly Alondite knows absolutly nothing about fishing
yeah I noticed >_>

Worms come in a FOAM DISH filled with dirty, shredded paper you noob!