Lots of things are important. It doesn't make them the same, or equivalent. WTF is wrong with you?

Nothing. Why would something be wrong with knowing understanding is far more important than unrealistic and enforced grammar uniformity?

Yeah, let's have non-uniform language. That's a good idea.

“The worl is ful of things waiting to happen. Thats the meat and boan of it right there. You myt think you can jus go here and there doing nothing. Happening nothing. You cant tho you bleeding cant. You put your self on any road and some thing wil show its self to you. Wanting to happen. Waiting to happen. You myt say, 'I dont want to know.' But 1ce its showt its self to you you wil know wont you. You cant not know no mor. There it is and working in you. You myt try to put a farness be twean you and it only you cant becaws youre carrying it inside you. The waiting to happen aint out there where it ben no more its inside you.”

― Russell Hoban, Riddley Walker

You're not listening Charly. I have never argued for absolute non-uniformity. Though the science I have studied suggests we humans can understand each other pretty well even in extreme instances of non-uniformity.

Oh BTW internet grammar nits who really push trying to force someone to conform to them need a weak-willed and unaware target to succeed. Anyone with basic dignity, self- respect and knowledge of understanding will eat them for lunch if determined. At least in my experience. I do look forward to further results of study on the topic as the knowledge of internet culture matures.

Communication is important. If the candidate fails to communicate to a sufficiently high standard for the job then that matters. Grammar nits care about grammar far far beyond it's use in communication.

"Correct" does not necessarily make somebody a grammar nit.

A grammar teacher in a school is not a grammar nit.

But, if you want to look at what a concerted, futile effort to manipulate someone for their grammar looks like ( it ain't pretty):

qed you pedont

Grammar nits are cool.

Define "worth it", OP.

It doesn't but the people who care about 'its' vs 'it's' or 'your' vs 'you're' to the extent they point it out for any non-humorous reason are not to be taken seriously.

It's not like when someone says 'the hoi polloi'. They should obviously be shot for the good of humanity.

They sure think they are and they also think they are king, the mighty lord of people.

Not you though, your just cool Charlie. I'd even tell you the personal reasons my linguist usage varies from time to time if we were to ever meet in person. However, as you hint, we should give luke back his thread.

Apologies luke, for veering far, and best wishes on your endeavors.

1% of people who ever try being successful is way different from x% of people who really give it a focused lifetime of effort being top 1% successful. I think x is probably well over 20% in any field.

Unfortunately for OP the ship sailed on athletics but at 31 OP still has plenty of time to sink 10000 or 20000 hours into learning to be world class at something. OP you just have to decide what that something is.

Meanwhile 1% is great and all but top 10% or even top 20% in most professions is perfectly successful too. And you don't have to put forward a 1% effort to get there which seems important to you.

Sure, it can become snobbery. Although you and Spank seem a little sensitive to it. Is there some bad experience that either of you want to share?

Sensitivity is much stronger than manipulation, coercion, and snobbery. Being sensitive is natural and human, and also makes for a good quality of a scientific instrument.

My irritation is purely about how others are treated. Personally, I found school a doddle and had no trouble with grammar. I also know how to wear a tie and drink lager. With a gun to my head I could probably say 'math'.

Most annoyed I can remember is receiving a letter confirming an order from a client I got on well with. Someone who couldn't sell diddly squat paraded it around laughing at him because of the bad grammar. I didn't hit him.

I thought this thread was going to be about milk.

Probably an improvement.

I wouldn't be **** with the 1% thang. The 10-20% looks more like it.

Correct is the wrong way to describe grammar, if you ask a linguist, as no one of two dialects of a language are superior to the other as Steven Pinker alerted me to with his thoughts on African American Vernacular English. AAVE is as complex as standard American English he says.

Proper grammar is just what's fashionable nowadays to a certain groups of people and is subject to change.

I do agree that uniformity and standards are important, but grammar nazis apparently suffer from OCD in varying degrees it seems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkzVOXKXfQk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-B_ONJIEcE

"Correct" is a perfectly valid way to describe grammar. It is true that the correctness depends upon the context, but there is no sense in which "correct" implies "superior."

I think proper is more fitting relative to the target audience. Correct implies free from error. 2+2 = 5 is incorrect.
Is the AAVE phrase 'He be workin' meaning 'he is employed' incorrect? I don't think so.

Are we arguing semantics ?

This thread just keeps on getting better. First grammar, now semantics.

I'm certain all this will be a lot of help for OP.

Gotta justify the need to correct other people somehow

Steven Pinker writes well. I read one of his books. Excellent grammar throughout. You could blame his editors. Or the little known fact that he drinks only 1% milk. Take your pick.