accusation of plagerism and a rant...opinions requested
ziggy...@yahoo.com
that occurred last night. Since you are my peers...as fellow writers
and readers of trek smut...I request some of your opinions on this
matter.
Late last night I recieved an e-mail from an Enterprise fan fiction
site...this site will remain anonymous simply because I'm more
interested in your opinions of what was said than the actual peron(s).
In the e-mail I was told that my story.."The Seven Year Itch"..which
was recently posted to this board...could not in,"good conscious",
be posted to this person's site. The person informed me that it
contained plagerism and the person sited two sources...ST TOS: Amok
Time and ST Voyager: Blood Fever...both Trek episodes.
My response was this...First...that I had never seen the Voyager
episode "Blood fever"..so I couldn't have plagerized it.
I checked the episode's air date. The stories I derived my
dialogue from..which were stories I wrote nearly six years ago
...were ones of my own writing and preceded the episode "Blood Fever"
and I have proof of this in the fact that Deja news can be searched
for my stories and the date they were posted precedes "Blood Fever"
by years....but don't worry..I won't sue Paramount for plagerism ;)
Second..I used one sequence from theepisode "Amok Time"..the
Kirk/Spock dialogue about biology to pay homage to the
episode. Here it is...
*************************
"It has to do with biology." she said.
"Biology?" he said still not understanding."what kind of Biology?"
"Vulcan Biology.": she stated. Her mask of control showing it's
cracks.
"You mean the Biology of Vulcans?" he said inquisitively
She merely nodded her head in answer.
"Well..um..that is...I" he tried to find the questions but they were
not comming.
*****************
It was an attempt to...give a humerous twist to what I percieved as a
serious moment in the original "Amok Time" episode and a way to
link the first story with my own by giving a nod to it.
Writers..including ones of the Star Trek shows do things like that
all the time. Paying homage is not plagerism...the lines I used are
quite well known...only an idiot..and and apparently this
person..would think it to be plagerism instaid of a nod to the first
Pon Farr story. I recieved a number of responses..mostly about spell
check...I'm workin on it ;)..but none were accusations of plagerism.
I think most readers know what the hell I did. Maybe I should have
put some kind of disclaimer at the top...stating..the lines contained
in paragraph 47 lines bla bla bla...but you get the point. It's Trek
smut people.
Finally...to wind down this little rant a doo doo...I think the fact
that the person in question jumped the gun and was convinced that I
plagerised from an episode I've never seen ("Blood Fever") shows how
little this person understands the dymnamics of original material.
There is an old saying...THAT I'M NOT PLAGERIZING ;)..."There hasn't
been anything original since the Greeks". It's all just repackaged
material in an updated setting. I don't know if I agree completely
but I do know that a great deal of new, fresh material is the same
old story. Read any of our fan fiction and you start to see the blur.
Same concepts...same ideas..just told in slightly different ways.
The same thing applies to authors of books, magazine articles and
television shows. The fact that I wrote something that is very
similiar to an episode an episode writer wrote years later does not
mean they went to the internet and found my wonderful work of art and
said.."hey..I can't write for shit...this stuff is good...lets use
it!"
It's analogous to putting a chimp in front of a type writer and
letting him bang away....99% of what comes out is garbage..but then
there is that 1% that looks like a word or sentence fragmant. It's
not..it's merely random letters strung together in sequence that
seems like words. It does not mean the chimp speaks English or has a
higher degree of intelligence. The writer's of "Blood Fever"
used a general concept and approached it in a similiar fashion to
myself...its purely random...words were strung together in a manner
that seems similiar to my own. This does not mean they copied from
me....not everything is a big conspiracy.
Well..that's about it. I wanted to bring this to the message board
and get your opinions.
J
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
ASCEM messages are copied to a mailing list. Most recent messages
can be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASCEML.
T'Rhys
>
>My response was this...First...that I had never seen the Voyager
>episode "Blood fever"..so I couldn't have plagerized it.
>I checked the episode's air date. The stories I derived my
>dialogue from..which were stories I wrote nearly six years ago
>...were ones of my own writing and preceded the episode "Blood Fever"
>and I have proof of this in the fact that Deja news can be searched
>for my stories and the date they were posted precedes "Blood Fever"
>by years....but don't worry..I won't sue Paramount for plagerism ;)
>
I've always thought "Blood Fever" was too well written and contained too
many fannish plot twists to have originated with a Paramount writer. My
first thought on watching it was "oho, they've been into the zines and
fanfic, haven't they?" <g>
>The fact that I wrote something that is very
>similiar to an episode an episode writer wrote years later does not
>mean they went to the internet and found my wonderful work of art and
>said.."hey..I can't write for shit...this stuff is good...lets use
>it!"
>
Of course there's also the possibility that they did. You never know -
maybe that writer got through school by downloading essays off the net and
passing them off as his own just like the students on Boston Public and Max
Bickford did.
As far as the lines from Amok Time are concerned, a little disclaimer
citing their source (believe it or not, not everyone has seen TOS) and
explaining why you rewrote them for your story should take care of any
accusations of plagiarism. I did that quite a while ago on dialog fragments
from two episodes (Enemy Within and Deadly Years) in order to humorously
insert Spock's imagined (by me) thoughts 'between the lines', and everybody
seemed to understand what I was doing.
LL&P }:)
"T'Rhys" <tkn...@ix.netcom.com>
saidi...@yahoo.com
> In the e-mail I was told that my story.."The Seven Year Itch"..which
> was recently posted to this board...could not in,"good conscious",
> be posted to this person's site. The person informed me that it
> contained plagerism and the person sited two sources...ST TOS: Amok
> Time and ST Voyager: Blood Fever...both Trek episodes.
actually illegal, and would/could be considered plagerism of some
sort because we use the characters and ST universe - which none of us
created - without the permission of the people who own it. That is
why we put the disclaimers on the stories. I would suggest you start
doing that on everything you write, just in case. :-)
I see nothing wrong with what you wrote, at all. I've seen some
people completely rewrite episodes...including a lot that was in the
shows, then adding their own scenes to it. I plan to do that myself,
in fact. I've never heard of any restriciton on fanfiction before -
like I said, I think it's all illegal anyway. If you were trying to
publish that story, you'd have problems, but as you said, it's just
treksmut.
So, I don't know what that person's problem is...what's the
difference between taking those words from TOS, taking the names,
characters, ships, technology and everything else from the Star Trek
universe and using those?
Perhaps this person, being the list owner, is just afraid that should
you be sued for plagerism (I would hope that TPTB have better things
to do than prosecute us for these stories we write and share only
with each other, on our online communities, and make absolutely zip
on)that it could somehow come back on hir for allowing it to post to
hir site. In that case I wonder why they bothered to make their own
fanfiction list.
I would suggest just finding another Enterprise list...there's plenty
of them out there.
Saidicam29
Mark Stanley
>
> How can it be plagerism...if you don't make any money of it.
I disagree strongly here -- it is perfectly possible to plagarise
without making money from it.
I'd say, from the info given in the original post, that she has made
transformative, even slightly satirical, use of the material she copied,
so the charge of plagarism is probably unjustified. (Stories that
contain dialogue from TV shows *can* be iffy -- some are obviously
plagarism, some are obviously not, and some are a matter of opinion.)
But if I were to take your story, change the names and locations, and
post it to a Star Wars list, it's just as much plagarism as if I were to
change the names in a Theodore Sturgeon story and sell it to a really
dumb publisher.
Mark
--
Fear me. Or at least fear my lizard.
--Olivia, future Evil Overlord, and her minion, Fluffy.
~~~
mrs...@sk.sympatico.ca
http://www.geocities.com/mrs260/
Elli
written for another series.
So I agree with you...
Elli
Mark Stanley
>
> Well, here's my opinion on this subject. AFAIK, all fanficiton is
> actually illegal, and would/could be considered plagerism of some
> sort because we use the characters and ST universe - which none of us
> created - without the permission of the people who own it.
Just for the record, I disagree with this, too. IMO, fanfic is fair use
-- it makes transformative use of copyrighted source material. (Judith
Gran? IIRC you've written something on this subject... I know *someone*
has.)
Mark
--
Fear me. Or at least fear my lizard.
--Olivia, future Evil Overlord, and her minion, Fluffy.
~~~
mrs...@sk.sympatico.ca
http://www.geocities.com/mrs260/
ziggy...@yahoo.com
In the case of art and artists..or artistes(with a bad french accent)
its a matter of personal work and creation. I think fan fiction can
be plagerised if someone copies it with the express purpose of
calling it their own creation with no acknowledgement to the original
creator.
ziggy...@yahoo.com
thread...fan fiction is not plagerism..its copyright infrigement and
trademark violation. However...Paramount seems ok with fans writing
stories. Where as Fox had a huge problem with X-files fans doing so
and were shutting down fan fic sites left and right several years
ago. We can write the stories...just like the licensed writers who
put out the trek novels do....though they are officially sanctioned
by Paramount.
ziggy...@yahoo.com
is not fair use. A company has the right to protect its product and
its products reputation. If we go writing Kirk/Spock gay stories and
Paramount wants some "wholesome" family image..they have the right
stop your publishing such material because you give a negative
aspect to their product. Take it from me...I do comic book art..I
know plenty of artists who catch hell from DC comics for
displaying..not selling...pics of Wonder Woman and Supergirl
screwing. It adds a "negative" image to their "wholsome" product.
--- In ASCEML@y..., Mark Stanley <mrs260@s...> wrote:
> saidicam29@y... wrote:
> >
> > Well, here's my opinion on this subject. AFAIK, all fanficiton is
> > actually illegal, and would/could be considered plagerism of some
> > sort because we use the characters and ST universe - which none
of us
> > created - without the permission of the people who own it.
>
> Just for the record, I disagree with this, too. IMO, fanfic is fair
use
> -- it makes transformative use of copyrighted source material.
(Judith
> Gran? IIRC you've written something on this subject... I know
*someone*
> has.)
>
> Mark
> --
> Fear me. Or at least fear my lizard.
> --Olivia, future Evil Overlord, and her minion, Fluffy.
> ~~~
> mrs260@s...
Karmen Ghia
> saidi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Just for the record, I disagree with this, too. IMO,
> fanfic is fair use
> -- it makes transformative use of copyrighted source
> material. (Judith
> Gran? IIRC you've written something on this
> subject... I know *someone*
> has.)
Copyright and Fanfiction
http://www.geocities.com/cc_ssd/copyright.html
if anyone is interested.
Karmen
=====
http://geocities.com/karmen_ghia_pages
For all your cravings!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com
Chris
<<It's a complicated area full of legal wrangling. I'm pretty
sure Trek
is not fair use. A company has the right to protect its product
and
its products reputation. If we go writing Kirk/Spock gay stories
and
Paramount wants some "wholesome" family image..they have the
right
stop your publishing such material because you give a negative
aspect to their product. Take it from me...I do comic book art..I
know plenty of artists who catch hell from DC comics for
displaying..not selling...pics of Wonder Woman and Supergirl
screwing. It adds a "negative" image to their "wholsome"
product.>>
Well, I'm no lawyer myself -- but it seems to me that experts
often disagree on how to *interpret* the law. Example: some
constitutional scholars think that the second amendment allows
restrictions on handguns, others think it doesn't; same for
pornography being "protected" speech -- or not -- under the first
amendment. So whether or not *Paramount* would consider fanfic to
fall under "fair use" (and I don't know that this opinion has
ever been publicly stated) is irrelevant. I certainly wouldn't
expect Paramount to openly support fanfic (though Gene
Roddenberry certainly *did* support it), but their view of things
doesn't constitute the law. The estate of Margaret Mitchell
thought that the "Gone With the Wind" parody novel "The Wind Done
Gone" was plagiarism -- but a federal court eventually ruled
against them and the novel is now in print. So until a court
rules on the issue, we really don't know whether fanfic is
considered "fair use" or not. And even if a court did rule that
it wasn't fair use, it's still possible to hold a well-reasoned
and contradictory opinion that it is.
As far as "wholesome family images" go -- after that detox scene
in the Enterprise pilot, and a couple of "officially sanctioned"
novels that trade heavily on lesbian mirror-versions of the ST
characters, I frankly have my doubts that Paramount could make
that argument fly.
Chris
J. Juls
had to spell it.
(I can't quite stop giggling about anyone who's so uptight and has a fanfic
list.)
Julie
SAMK
person's work and passing it off as your own.
Taking ideas doesn't count.
Taking small chunks and changing them around a little for a satirical
or other such effect doesn't count.
As a well-know author once said (and I'd tell you which one if I
could remember), "Good authors imitate. Great authors steal."
So long as you make everything you take your own, you are not
plagiarizing.
SAMK
sa...@inil.com
Ellen_F...@hotmail.com
>
> As a well-know author once said (and I'd tell you which one if I
> could remember), "Good authors imitate. Great authors steal."
According to Bartlett's, it was T. S. Eliot, and the quote was
"Immature poets imitate. Mature poets steal."
Ellen
Chris
<<Plagiarism is defined as taking, word for word, large chunks of
another
person's work and passing it off as your own.
Taking ideas doesn't count.
Taking small chunks and changing them around a little for a
satirical
or other such effect doesn't count.>>
A small caveat: In *fiction* taking ideas (usually) doesn't
count, nor does "borrowing" phrases that one might reasonably
expect the reader to recognize as part of a tribute or satire.
(Or, in fanfic, including scenes/dialogue from canon in order to
build your own story. Your readers will *know* what you're taking
from canon.)
However, in other types of writing -- academic writing
especially -- taking original ideas without proper attribution or
taking the words of others and "changing [them] around" certainly
*does* count as plagiarism. I've had plenty of students who
didn't get this and were shocked when they got busted for
plagiarism after they (for example) meticulously "rearranged"
parts of books in order to construct their research papers --
always without attribution.
<<As a well-know author once said (and I'd tell you which one if
I
could remember), "Good authors imitate. Great authors steal."
So long as you make everything you take your own, you are not
plagiarizing.>>
Yes -- this is true of the fiction writing process generally, so
it always makes me smile when folks accuse fanfic of being
"derivative" -- obviously such people have never tried to write
fiction themselves, or they would know that it's *all*
derivative.
Chris
T'Rhys
>
>As far as "wholesome family images" go -- after that detox scene
>in the Enterprise pilot, and a couple of "officially sanctioned"
>novels that trade heavily on lesbian mirror-versions of the ST
>characters, I frankly have my doubts that Paramount could make
>that argument fly.
Not to mention the fact that they obviously knew about the various flavors
of Trek slash for some time (even before the Trekkies film came out) and
did nothing about it. Unlike George Lucas, who effectively squashed Star
Wars slash back when that film first came out.
LL&P }:)
"T'Rhys" <tkn...@ix.netcom.com>
cimfi...@hotmail.com
>a couple of "officially sanctioned"
> novels that trade heavily on lesbian mirror-versions of the ST
> characters,
Huh? Where? I'd never even heard that before. If the main
characters are made into women--I assume you figure that out and they
don't explicitly tell you--then where is the remaining relationship to
the series?
cim
Chris
> novels that trade heavily on lesbian mirror-versions of the ST
> characters,
<<Huh? Where? I'd never even heard that before. If the main
characters are made into women--I assume you figure that out and
they
don't explicitly tell you--then where is the remaining
relationship to
the series?>>
Um ... sorry if the language was confusing there. The reference
is to the "Dark Passions" Pocket novels, which utilize the
"mirror universe" versions of female characters from DS9, TNG and
VOY (I'm not sure what you mean by "main characters turned into
women"). Like the Intendant Kira in DS9's mirror shows, many of
these women are implied to be lesbian or bisexual. Obviously a
marketing move designed to appeal to young males in the Trek
audience.
Chris
Alara Rogers
> is to the "Dark Passions" Pocket novels, which utilize the
> "mirror universe" versions of female characters from DS9, TNG and
> VOY (I'm not sure what you mean by "main characters turned into
> women"). Like the Intendant Kira in DS9's mirror shows, many of
> these women are implied to be lesbian or bisexual. Obviously a
> marketing move designed to appeal to young males in the Trek
> audience.
Maybe that was the reason they authorized it, but the reason they
*did* it is because Susan Wright, who is presumably either lesbian or
bi herself, likes writing lesbian and bi female characters.
I get more than a tad annoyed at the notion that women slashing men
is cool, but when women get slashed themselves, it's for the sake of
the horndog teenage guys out there. Maybe it's for the horndog les-bi
chicks out there, and if it appeals to the guys too, bonus.
While I heartily wish they didn't have to go to a universe where
Everyone Is Evil in order to show les-bi women, and that they weren't
such cowards that they were not willing to show gay-bi men in the
same situations, I can only be happy that someone was willing to
write a pro novel where Seven of Nine could fall in love with Kira
Nerys, who herself has a passionate thing for Deanna Troi. Someday
maybe they'll be enlightened enough that they can legitimize P/Q, G/B
and K/S in their alternate universes, too. Until then... well, me, I
prefer reading about chicks who wanna boink each other than guys who
wanna boink each other, unless the guys in question are objects of an
obsession on my part. And since Q wasn't in the book and the Mirror
Universe has already thoroughly ruined Garak and Spock is established
to be dead, I'll just read about Seven seducing her way through the
galaxy. Yum.
Chris
> Um ... sorry if the language was confusing there. The reference
> is to the "Dark Passions" Pocket novels, which utilize the
> "mirror universe" versions of female characters from DS9, TNG
and
> VOY (I'm not sure what you mean by "main characters turned into
> women"). Like the Intendant Kira in DS9's mirror shows, many of
> these women are implied to be lesbian or bisexual. Obviously a
> marketing move designed to appeal to young males in the Trek
> audience.
Then Alara wrote:
<<Maybe that was the reason they authorized it, but the reason
they
*did* it is because Susan Wright, who is presumably either
lesbian or
bi herself, likes writing lesbian and bi female characters.
I get more than a tad annoyed at the notion that women slashing
men
is cool, but when women get slashed themselves, it's for the sake
of
the horndog teenage guys out there. Maybe it's for the horndog
les-bi
chicks out there, and if it appeals to the guys too, bonus.>>
Well, I think we've got a false dichotomy here. As someone who
enjoys het, m/m *and* f/f slash (in all cases provided that the
characters involved are ones that interest me) I *don't*
subscribe to the idea that m/m slash is "cool" while f/f isn't.
It is, however, a fact of Paramount's marketing that the female
demographic, whatever its sexual preferences, is and always has
been far less importance to Trek producers than the male one.
There's nothing revolutionary about saying this. Numerous Trek
insiders, from writers to producers to costume designers, have
been admitting it for years in interview after interview. There
is a strong belief (justified or not) thorughout TV marketing
that young males are a more desirable group of consumers than
young or middle-aged females. Add to that the fact that science
fiction has a history of catering to adolescent male fantasies,
*and* the fact that Trek is predominantly written by males, who
are more likely to be turned on by the idea of the Intendant
kissing Ezri and scared shitless by the idea of Kirk kissing
Spock.
None of this is to say that females in the audience (again, of
whatever orientation or preference) -- or gay men, come to
that -- can't "poach" their pleasures wherever they might be
found. So, yes, if the author of "Dark Passions" saw an
opportunity to indulge her own preferences in a pro-novel, I say
good for her. But I really don't believe that Paramount is
interested in doing anything specifically to please women, gay or
straight. There was, for a while on DS9 and VOY, a boom in het
romances (Dax/Worf, Odo/Kira, Paris/Torres), which might arguably
have been designed to appeal to het women, but with Brannon Braga
now running the show, I sense a turn away from even that.
<<While I heartily wish they didn't have to go to a universe
where
Everyone Is Evil in order to show les-bi women, and that they
weren't
such cowards that they were not willing to show gay-bi men in the
same situations, I can only be happy that someone was willing to
write a pro novel where Seven of Nine could fall in love with
Kira
Nerys, ...>>
Yes. Absolutely agreed. I've long been annoyed with DS9's mirror
shows for a number of reasons -- and tying lesbian/bi behavior in
women to evil and decadence is one of them -- but I can also
understand why some viewers would enjoy the subversive aspect of
having some form of sexuality other than heterosexual visible on
the screen. Nothing in my post was intended to condemn "Dark
Passions" or the enjoyment folks might derive from it -- but I
still find it hypocritical and telling that TPTB can embrace
onscreen f/f kisses and novels about f/f laisons, while
continuing to run screaming in fear from any hint of m/m sex, or
even (prophets forbid!) committed relationships between gay or
straight couples.
Chris
Mosca
--- Mark Stanley <mrs...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Just for the record, I disagree with this, too. IMO,
> fanfic is fair use
> -- it makes transformative use of copyrighted source
> material. (Judith
> Gran? IIRC you've written something on this
> subject... I know *someone*
> has.)
IIRC, several people have, and I'm one of them-- I
wrote a paper last year (still unpublished, but
getting there, I swear) on the subject. Note that the
following only applies in the US, and other countries'
copyright laws may be different. Also keep in mind
that this is my somewhat inexpert interpretation of
the law, and that the legality of fanfic is a
controversial issue.
Fair use provisions apply when (among other things) an
original work makes transformative use (commentary,
parody, etc.) of a source work; when the amount of
source work cited is low in proportion to the amount
of original material; and when the derivative work
will not cause financial hardship to the copyright
holder of the source work. All of these criteria
apply to most fanfic. Also, in response to a Supreme
Court case a few years ago, a legal definition of
parody has been established: by law, a parody is any
work that derives itself from a source work in order
to comment on the source work. By that definition,
most fanfic is parody in the legal sense.
I don't think that the story being discussed in this
thread is plagiarism, because all of the source
material quoted or referenced is used
transformatively, as parody.[1] I do think that the
disclaimers could have been clearer, but I think that
just about everyone's disclaimers could be clearer.
If it helps, please pass this along to the pertinent
sniping webmaster.
Mosca
[1] I'm primarily a literary critic. If the story in
question *isn't* protected by fair use, then every
literary paper I've ever written is plagiarism,
because I quote extensively from the sources I
discuss. I guess what I'm trying to make clear here
is that plagiarism isn't defined by *whether* one
makes use of a source work, but by *how* one uses that
source material.
=====
--
"I want it to be all-naked, all-gay _Buffy_."
-- Amber Benson, on her hopes for sixth season
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com
Chris
No, but the implication of the original post was that slash would
be objectionable to Trek creators/copyright holders because it
might (arguably) violate a desired "wholesome" Trek image. My
point was that TPTB can hardly object to homosexuality as
"contrary" to its desired image if it already looks like they're
endorsing it.
I also mentioned the detox scene in Enterprise -- which would
seem to be het as far as interaction between characters.
Chris
bulli...@yahoo.com
the plagiarism deal.
Anyway, your story isn't exactly that great either stand alone. We've
got improper tenses, punctuation errors...after reading this line,
"She was losing herself in his manliness," I gave up. Should grab a
beta reader!
Jack Bullions
http://www.geocities.com/bullions27
--- In ASCEML@y..., Karmen Ghia <karmen_ghia2@y...> wrote:
> --- Mark Stanley <mrs260@s...> wrote:
ziggy...@yahoo.com
and they leave me rather flat...I would say a lot of fan fic writers
tend to be rather wooden with their characters and don't really put
them in their proper personality....I'd rather have bad grammar than
bad character righting...one you can easily correct..the other is not
so easy....just my opinion.
J. Juls
.I'd rather have bad grammar than
> bad character righting...one you can easily correct..the other is not
> so easy....just my opinion.
>
I like neither. MHO.
Julie
Ellen_F...@hotmail.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <ziggypop999@y...>
>
> .I'd rather have bad grammar than
> > bad character righting...one you can easily correct..the other is not
> > so easy....just my opinion.
> >
>
> I like neither. MHO.
>
> Julie
Neither do I. I think Ziggy is right in saying that grammar is more
easily correctable-- but that means that there's even less
justification for letting grammatical errors slip into a final draft.
MHO.
Ellen
cimfi...@hotmail.com
> --- In ASCEML@y..., "J. Juls" <jjuls@t...> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <ziggypop999@y...>
> >
> > .I'd rather have bad grammar than
> > > bad character righting...one you can easily correct..the other
is not
> > > so easy....just my opinion.
> > >
> >
> > I like neither. MHO.
> >
> > Julie
>
> Neither do I. I think Ziggy is right in saying that grammar is more
> easily correctable-- but that means that there's even less
> justification for letting grammatical errors slip into a final
draft.
> MHO.
>
> Ellen
Bad punctuation and spelling are usually more irritating than bad
grammar, from my view. They're often more distracting, and seem
careless.
cim