Hey @JaneDoe42, the product is called Instant Pot, with a ‘t’. Not “Insta-pot”. That’s kind of a pet peeve of mine.
I hate when people don’t understand they’re in Factual Questions and right away start throwing in non-factual answers.
I’m sorry. Speeling has never been my strong point and then along came auto-correct and everything really went to shit from there.
I am guilty of overusing ellipses because my brain is always thinking of wry comments or further clarifications to add to the text. Sorry. (Not.)
If only that were always true.
mmm
Y’all is (or possibly, “are”) forgiven. My oft-stated objection is to illiterate morons, not good posters like you who may be occasional bad spellers.
P.S.- Even speaking in my capacity as a Dog, I bestow skritches on Gorgeous George. Because George does have the most gorgeous black and white colouration, which goes a long way to excusing goofiness. 
Some quotes are indeed way, way too long. But on the specific subject of quoting an immediately preceding post (or a part of it) a good reason is that one of the fucked-up failures of Discourse is that it’s impossible to distinguish between a reply to the preceding post and a reply to the OP. Or at least, that’s how it appears in the SDMB Light theme.
It’s one thing if you’re speaking. But why incorporate all of these pauses in your train of thought when you’re writing? Compare these two passages and tell me which one looks more coherent.
I got hungry…it was yesterday…I didn’t know what I wanted…I went to the deli…I looked at the sandwiches…they had reuben sandwiches…they looked good…so I bought one…and I took it home…and I ate it…it tasted delicious…
I got hungry yesterday. I didn’t know what I wanted to eat so I went to the deli to look around. Their reuben sandwiches looked good so I ordered one and took it home to eat. It was delicious.
First of all, I can say, “Whew, I’m not that bad.”
Second, I’m a technical writer by profession so I know my grammar.
Third, when on this site, I tend to drop the professional writing routine and write in the vernacular. you know… writing as if I’m speaking because that’s exactly what I’m doing in my head. I recommend you skip my posts.
Thank you for the forgiveness, but sadly I am not an occasional bad speller, I am constantly bad at it. I do try to correct myself when I can and will even take the time to pull up another browser if I think I’ve made a mistake and don’t get the squiggly red lines…but spelling has defeated me for almost 70 years so I don’t think I will improve much in the future.
Gormless George is always thrilled to get skritches and has rolled over for some belly rubs. His fuzzy white belly isn’t a trap, he just lurves himself some belly rubs.
I agree there’s a weak spot there, both in how the software supports doing that and in how our culture addresses that.
Here’s my current practice FWIW:
Of course it depends hugely on what the post count is. Right now I’m post #110 in this thread. No matter what I’m saying, the context for my comments is not the OP and only the OP. It’s the OP and the 108 posts after it viewed collectively. I’m not speaking directly to the OP. I’m speaking to all the thread participants as a group.
If I do need to address the OP directly / specifically, perhaps hoping to calm a digression without junior modding I’ll open with something like:
Getting back to the OP …
I think blah blah blah
Conversely, when I’m responding specifically to the post just above rather than to the general state of the thread to date, I’ll often open my post with
@JaneDoe42 just above …
I think blah blah blah
Lastly, if the thread is new / short and I’m in the first WAG 10 posts then even it’s more important to be clear whether I’m addressing the first post, the last post, or the thread as a whole.
thanks. Well corrected and well noted!
Sigh… this really twists my nickers. Conceivably, there’s no way anybody would totally screw up the spelling of “Swiss” to such a degree. Yes, I understand the replier thought “Belgian” was a more appropriate word, but to say the OP misspelled a totally different word that only has one letter in common is preposterous.
Just say ‘I think you meant “Belgian”’ instead of proclaiming the OP is such a bad speller they can’t even come close to what you PREFERRED they said. That just smacks of hideous arrogance.
Moderating:
I may have started it, by replying as if comments were made to me. But please don’t call out individual posters here. That includes quoting examples of stuff that annoys you.
As the OP said:
I appreciate you coming to my defense, but in the spirit of this thread - “Nitpick your fellow Dopers” - I’m obliged to point out that you misspelled “knickers”.
That is, unless you’re a horse.
*knickers
ninja’d
I thought it was just a figure of speech like “getting your [sic] nickers in a twist” and perfectly harmless in a context that was entirely trivial (Belgian vs Swiss primacy in chocolate making).
I didn’t realize this was bad form.
I may be speaking as a (former) professional copy-editor here, but there are certain usages that differ depending on the style book and-or house style one is used to and we frequently differ from each other on the usage that each of us prefers personally in casual writing. But this variation does NOT, in my view, entitle others (non-copy editors) to pronounce that all and any personal preferences are perfectly fine, and that no rules or standards can be applied to such matters.
By which I mean, that of course you can apply any standard you wish, and no one can stop you. We can, however, judge you. And we will. Usually silently.
Maybe I’m the one being whooshed here, but claiming “Belgian” was a misspelling of “Swiss” was obviously intended humorously. To fully belabor the point, pretending that a preference for Swiss chocolate over Belgian could only be explained as an unintentional spelling error, and using the standard SDMB nitpicking trope of “I think you misspelled…”
I apologize for calling out @JaneDoe42 earlier. I meant it as a light hearted ribbing, but I realize it may have come across as harsher than intended.
Almost every interesting thread devolves into an argument between the same posters, with the same positions. Over and over. And since the moderators are often in this group, there is really no point in participating in a thread with more than a few days posts.
I will now be asked to provide examples.