Okay, that makes sense.

> I just think it's a stupid and completely unnecessary stipulation to _require_ kids to drop out of school and at the same time exclude everyone else who might have a good idea and a passion.

I kind of like it, myself. He's partially making a statement about the mainstream education path - personally, I think people would be better off if they worked and/or traveled from 18 to 20 or so, and then went into university with some experience and critical thinking.

I remember I went back to university some years after dropping out, and I already had experience in entrepreneurship and writing the popular company newsletter, as well as writing contracts, specs, marketing materials, and lots of communications with clients, staff, contractors, etc. Back at university, I had a required course on writing. It was taught by a young adjunct English professor who had done less writing than me whose ideas were absolutely terrible. She was big on form and rules, but didn't understand that the point of writing is to communicate. Her rules were getting in the way of communication. Luckily, I knew better, so I did what I could to get through the class but didn't let her corrode my practical writing with her rules-based nonsense. Especially in business, it's important to communicate clearly - none of the most successful people I know obey grammar and rules very strictly. I feel bad for the younger people that get exposed to such poor quality ideas before seeing how the real world operates.

I am saying that, yes. Basically, the time it takes to filter a complex thought into correct grammar is frequently a waste of thought cycles.

An example - I was invited to lunch with a good friend of mine who was a broker, and with a top real estate developer in Los Angeles. The developer was an immigrant to America, and he's really rough around the edges. Mid-lunch he calls out, "Water no cold!" to the staff. (He meant no ice. They figured it out)

I'll use run on sentences if it lets me construct an idea the way I want. I'll use the dash sometimes - y'know, kind of like that, even if it's not appropriate. Sometimes I'll comma sentences together, like I did the sentence before this, even if it's not strictly correct.

As long as it reads correctly to people and ideas get across, it works. Kill floweryness. Kill fluff. When I write to my literary agent to schedule a meeting, he writes back "confirmed" - nothing else. First time I saw that, I was like, "Well, that's kind of short of him." But then when I saw how fast he responds and how much he got done, I started just writing "Confirmed." to people. Though, I capitalized the "C" and added a period, so maybe I'm not in his ballpark yet.

You gotta think what your goal is when you write - if taking the time to grammar-ize something correctly doesn't help you get that goal, forget the grammar. Communicate your message clearly, that's all that matters.

The example from your literary agent makes sense only in the context of scheduling a meeting--the day, time, and place (or medium) you have suggested. This goes, it seems to me, to a message's completeness. Sure, your agent is efficient as long as the agent's confirmation is held in the context of your request. But on its own, the agent's message falls short.

Grammar and punctuation should aid in concise and complete communication. I love the way many authors can skirt good grammar while achieving better communication. So I agree with your conclusion. Tim

"Water no cold!" may result in snickers amongst the wait staff, and they may not even understand. "Water, no ice please" is certainly more respectful and appropriate. Simply saying "confirmed" is easier for your agent, but it may insult the recipient by being so terse.

Use good grammar with acquaintances to show respect and professionalism. Use your own style with people who know you well to show your personality.