[Gllug] rma rejected + the worst grammer +ever+

[Rich Walker]

Mike Brodbelt <mike at coruscant.demon.co.uk> writes:

> On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 23:45 +0100, Martin A. Brooks wrote:
>
>> The fact someone manages to get their point across to you in their 
>> non-native language is something to be celebrated, not something for 
>> which you should pour copious amount of salt onto for every missing 
>> syntactic sugar crystal.  They may or may not be wrong, the fact you 
>> understood means their communication attempt was successful.
>
> I agree completely with the above, when the person in question is
> speaking for themselves. When they are a representative of a company
> which does business in the English speaking world, and which offers a
> support service in English, such communication is unacceptable. It is
> not a negative reflection on the person communicating, but it is on the
> company they represent. One gets the impression that the company
> probably pays equally little attention to detail in their quality
> assurance and support operations, and I for one would take my business
> elsewhere.

Of course, you *don't* know anything about the person at the other end.

In this case, you've all assumed their grammar is bad for one reason,
and are reacting accordingly.

But there are other reasons for poor grammar:
    * learning disabilities
    * dyslexia
    * stroke victim
off the top of my head.

Now, how do you know which it is? If, as a company, you take your
business elsewhere because of your reaction to someone who is registered
disabled, you can (if I remember correctly) fall foul of the law over
this - not to mention breaching a whole number of points of good
etiquette.

cheers, Rich.

-- 
rich walker         |  Shadow Robot Company | rw at shadow.org.uk
technical director     251 Liverpool Road   |
need a Hand?           London  N1 1LX       | +UK 20 7700 2487
www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug