Is there a difference between [sic] and [sic!]? I came across the latter in a library record the other day. My first thought was that the editing librarian had a bit of an attitude that day. 
Or not.
rivulus
Generally, I think it’s pretty silly to use [sic] when quoting posts here, as it’s generally assumed that you cut and pasted the quote, so there’s really no confusion over whether the mistake was yours or was there originally, and if there was any doubt, the original is right there anyway.
When quoting from other resources, especially ones that aren’t online, it is useful. Also, I’d imagine that there are some uses where it is useful in quoting posts, such as when someone deserves the insult.
Yes, I did.
It is pedantry, when quoting another person’s post, and especially in Great Debates. We should all assume we can spell. People make typos. And I’m more interested in an opinion, rather than someone’s spelling, anyway.
Cood sum 1 pleez tell me ware it sez u have to have a colledge degree in english before u can post on this board?
People who spell incorrectly should be extincted…
lucwarm said:
Later, dalovindj said:
I think this people are called…
wait for it
[sic]ophants :D:D:D
[sub]Thank you, thank you. I’ll be her all week, two shows daily.[/sub]
You do realize that you asked for it.
damn, damn, damn! And I thought I had proofed (I just typed “proffed” but caught it) my post first!!!
Spritle
Still smug about his little funny.
Actually, does ‘sic’ not literally mean ‘such’? So it’s perfectly logical for me to use it to show I am unsure of the spelling of a particuler (sic) word. Imo, better than that ridiculous (sp?) we see too often.
But people, if you’re feeling pedantic enough to demonstrate that you know you’ve misspelled a word , why not simply open Word and check the damn word. Takes only a few seconds.
Now, time to count the errors in my post :). ::teeth prepped for gnashing::
Used in the context described in the OP, no. In this context, the definition is as follows:
intentionally so written - used after a printed word or passage to indicate that it is intended exactly as printed or to indicate that it exactly reproduces an original.
The word sic in Latin means “thus”, as in “thus it originally appeared.”
Or you could, I don’t know, [long rant, many expletives, gnashing of teeth and tearing hair, frothing at the mouth, and general pedantic raving deleted] look the word up and spell it correctly. [Polite smile here.]
Re: looking things up as regards posts:
There are circumstances where one cannot conveniently look up a word. For example, I’m posting at a library where the sole activatable program is Internet Explorer, and new sites take a while to load. Granted I could walk across the room to use an unabridged dictionary, and perhaps come back to find my computer in use by someone else.
The custom here (at least in GD) is that if you need to use a word of which you know the meaning but are unsure of the spelling, you place a “(sp?)” after the word. Another poster will, in passing, confirm or correct your spelling.
Perfect spelling and precise syntax are not requirements for clear thinking. They do help in communicating, like capitalization, punctuation, and breaking your post into paragraphs. If you’re seriously interested in having people read your post and respect your ideas, you use the best you have.
Much as you know it pains me to disagree with you, Poly, I still think that (sp?) is much overused. Yeah, if your choice is to either spell the word wrong or not post, then spell it wrong. I admit to have used it once or twice myself, when I was in a real rush or when my spelling was so mangled that the search engine couldn’t point me in the right direction . . . But for every poster who faces an epic journey to reach a dictionary, or for whom the time it would take to load a dictionary web page would prove a great hardship, I think there are ten more who just find it easier to slap on (sp?) than to open another window and look the word up.
I realize that it puts next to no burden on the reader, because you can usually puzzle out what they mean without any trouble–but the reader can do that without the “(sp?).” The “(sp?)” is there to reassure the reader that the writer is smart enough to know that they got it wrong . . . but personally, I find laziness more irritating than ignorance. Maybe it’s the silly face-saving element of it that piques me so.
It’s just an irrational little pet peeve of mine.
Sorry, did not the rest of my post make it on to your computer? 
- look, another polite smiley.
Let’s try to keep that straight.
Galldurnit, and how exactly did I miss that? :o
My buttons are waaaay too easy to push, I guess.
Sorry!
I use [sic], but only when the original part of the quote might be misconstrued as a typo on my part, like when quoting something with medieval spelling or usage (yes, it is pointless and vindictive to use it in the message board format, though). I once chose to NOT use it in a paper, discussing George Grosz’s appointment of a friend as the “Propagandada” (you see, ‘propaganda,’ with ‘dada’-- it’s his joke, you see), and the professor who graded my paper corrected it to “propaganda” and made a little joke about my not paying attention (this was the sole grammar/ spelling mistake in this paper). Boy, that bugged. I have also had a grammar-crazed professor at my school now “correct” my bad grammar, within a quotation (i.e., the original author’s antiquated grammar), either not noticing the quotation marks (wouldn’t surprise me) or thinking I had misquoted. So it’s the occasional “[sic]” from here on out for me. No, I’m [capybara] not going to [annotate] every [God-damned] thing-- everything I quote would end up reading like the Good News Bible or something.