Himself set's wrong's write in the middle of the night, hes the hero Britsol deserve's. But I suppose at least you'reselve's got the comma in the write plaice
Since we are being pedantic, doesn't grammer refer to the spoken language and not the spelling conventions used to represent it, in other words this person is a spelling bandit, or more specifically a punctuation bandit
Not really, it would be a grammar mistake if they actually meant, let's say, "its" in place of "it's". Since the pronunciation of the two is the same, they word they actually meant to write is "it's", they just spell it wrongly.
Oh, can I add another pet peeve. "Semantics" when discussing naming of things when the meaning is clear. "Semantics" is about meaning, not about naming. But it's "semantics", obviously :).
Punctuation would be part of orthography which is usually considered distinct.
Consider you can have multiple writing systems for a single language, that single language would have a single set of grammar rules, but would have multiple orthographic rules applied to it.
Put another way, if I was to invent apostropheless English which was exactly like English but just omits all written apostrophes that wouldn't change the rules of English grammar, possessives would still be possessive etc.
I don't really have much of an opinion about this because, although it's harm, it's pretty small harm. If I could, I'd just ask him whether he thought English wouldn't be a steaming pile of slop if everyone used it correctly?
While they covered up the guy's face etc. they've shown his "apostrophizer" - surely that's enough for anyone who spots a guy walking around with it at night in a hoodie to pick him out?
Bristol is a curious place, street paintings by Banksy and work like these actually draw people to these business. Pretty sure that these business will be happy with the outcome.
I was also born and educated in Bristol, and not everyone there's an anarchist in favour of people being able to paint or sticker or everything they want.
And people saying they're ok with graffiti and vandalism are really saying that they're ok with other people's property to be graffitied and vandalised, not their own.
Nobody said vandalism is okay, nobody said graffiti is okay but only if done to other people's property, and this guy is not painting or stickering everything he wants, he's (non-destructively and for free) fixing bad signage.
> And people saying they're ok with graffiti and vandalism are really saying that they're ok with other people's property to be graffitied and vandalised, not their own.
At an extreme if Banskey wanted to graffity something of mine I'd be incredibly happy so this is just plain incorrect.
Probably not big on people tagging my stuff, but this is not what you are implying.
Visual pollution is a thing, as you seem to agree since to you graffiti is vandalism (compared to invasion of property rights for instance), but by this standard why does a business owner get to then visually pollute outside of their property?
I think 'pg agrees with you [0] on graffiti, at least of the 'tagging' kind:
> Graffiti happens at the intersection of ambition and incompetence: people want to make their mark on the world, but have no other way to do it than literally making a mark on the world.
Matching typefaces, careful blanking (and I'll bet the kerning he couldn't correct remains annoying) - that's a lot more clever and classy than mere "damaging property".
Under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, the applicable definition is:
"A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence."
It's not entirely clear that the "grammar vigilante" has actually committed an offence. There is a reasonable argument to be made that he is effecting a repair rather than damage. Consider a "cleanliness vigilante" who cleans dirty windows or a "bicycle repair vigilante" who repairs parked bicycles.
It genuinely boggles my mind that you can justify interfering with something that belongs to someone else because you think it's clever or classy. It doesn't matter how classy you think it is if the owner of the property doesn't want it.
Everyone here's replying like I'm crazy. I think it's just simply wrong to do anything to something that belongs to someone else without their permission unless you absolutely have to. No matter how trivial or clever it is. It's just wrong.
>I think it's just simply wrong to do anything to something that belongs to someone else without their permission unless you absolutely have to.
If your neighbour had gone out and left their front door open, would you close it for them? If your front lawn crossed the boundary into their property, would you mow the whole lawn? It's not a clear-cut moral or legal issue.
Which is the justification for disallowing overly offensive clothing and behaviour.
Now you might say that displaying a grammar error isn't anywhere near as offensive as nudity, not even if the grammar error is displayed in the most prominent fashion available to the shop, and for years on end. But I don't think that's a given. It is at least discussable.
"Overly offensive" to whom? Who is the arbiter of what is "offensive" or not? That is far too subjective to be enforced evenly. 'Society' is not an acceptable answer either, every individual has different viewpoints.
Sounds as if you're proving that widely-accepted laws are impossible, peelian policework, etc. "It cannot be done to the taste of absolutely all, therefore it cannot be done at all."
Oh that's not fair now, come on. My comment was in response to, and concerning, the notion of "overly offensive clothing" and in that narrow instance, your quote is on point -- albeit a tad condescending (not that you were, just that quote itself).
