Ah, that "spell things however you want" Wired essay that made me apoplectic last week is finally online: http://j.mp/yw20ZN

Spelling: A Rebuttal From Wired’s Copydesk: http://j.mp/zrUFNg

@GrammarGirl And she completely undermines her point with the first sentence of her last paragraph. The rest is just iconoclasm.

@ArrantPedantry I know! That sentence got me too. "Oh, just good communication and clarity? Well, if we throw those aside..."

@GrammarGirl I never said or implied we should throw out "good communication and clarity."

@atrubek But you did say we don't need standard spelling, even though it contributes to clarity and communication.

@atrubek You seemed to take it way beyond texting. I'm not the only one who read it that way. (@zachjex @ruthseeley)

@GrammarGirl The goal should be clarity and communication, not enforcing arbitrary rules that are mutable and always in flux.

@atrubek Yes, but you undermine your whole argument by conceding that standard spelling contributes to clarity and communication.

@atrubek Sorry, but I don't think inconsistent spelling is going to aid communication or clarity. I'm with Lee Simmons on this one.

@GrammarGirl No. If someone writes with clarity and commicates her point, then variant spellings, new twists on old words, are ok.

@GrammarGirl I bet you find it impossible to read anything written before the 18th century, then. What a loss for you & to your knowledge!

@atrubek I get to your sentence "So who shud tell us how to spel?" and it slows me down. Less clear, not more clear.

@atrubek Look, I know it sucks to take so much online criticism. I once said "irregardless" is a word and got flamed to kingdom come.

@GrammarGirl maybe, by slowing down, some think about language in a new way about conventions-how they evolve & how they will change

@atrubek But you shouldn't be surprised having written something so outside the mainstream. Interesting discussion, but I disagree with you.

@GrammarGirl It doesn't suck. I'm fascinated by language and enjoy debating it.

@GrammarGirl nope--I'm not surprised. Of course not. I'm realize I'm a bit of a contrariat.

@GrammarGirl (contrarian!)

@atrubek It's not impossible to read things written before the 18th century, just more difficult. That's no argument for loose spelling.

@GrammarGirl Words were spelled many different ways then and before. The idea that words are spelled only one way is a recent invention.

@atrubek Yes, I know standardized spelling is relatively new, but that doesn't mean it's bad. Again, not an argument for your point.

@GrammarGirl Your logic sounds like: Poor spelling is bad writing. Shakespeare was a poor speller. Ergo, Shakespear was a bad writer?

@atrubek I don't see anything I've written that comes even close to implying that.

@atrubek Shakespeare wasn't a poor speller because spelling didn't matter in his time. There weren't standards like there are today.