- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,253
- Reaction score
- 2,690
'pour' for 'pore' is the only real mistake here. "having written" vs "writing" is a style choice. In "having written" the after is redundant (and therefore emphatic), and I prefer "having written" to "after writing" in the same way that "having done" is more indicative of completion than "after doing". The comma before the first "and" is debatable, but with it there are two independent introductory clauses (though both related to writing) rather than a single introductory clause with a conjunction.
I personally using "on" over "in" in this sense and I think that is the idiomatically preferred preposition. You "take pride in" but "pride yourself on" - so that "correction" is actually wrong as far as I can see.
The removal of the capitalisatoin of "Fake News" is almost petulant since the post is making a claim that he is capitalising some words for emphasis - something that the corrector has to wilfully ignore or just plain old disagrees with the sentiment. There is no room for a comma between "tweets" and "looking" without changing the timber of what is meant. To subordinate the last clause in this case may even be wrong but it is, at best, archaic. "Looking for a mistake" is better than "looking for mistakes" since the latter implies that there could be multiple mistakes while the former implies that there is not even one.
I have no idea what the mark over "only for emphasis" means. The "only" can only be placed before the "for" or after the "emphasis". It certainly can't go in between.
"b/c" is common tweet spelling for length. In the context of a tweet or memo it is completely idiomatically acceptable.
By the way - grammarly has no problem with the grammar or punctuation or sentence structure of this tweet - though it did flag that "significant plagiarism" was detected.
This "correction" is not even pedantic. This correction is a joke - but perhaps not the joke that was intended.
