I enjoy debates on spelling, and whether or not it mutters.

I suffer from typus correcticus, a particularly irritating affliction that manifests shortly after a postal or newspaper delivery. However hard I try to read something for interest or information's sake, typus correcticus will pull my eye to the unimportant, lazy or useless typo that sits there waving its red flag.

If there was money in proof reading I'd have a go.

And does today's obsession with persuasive alliteration ("hey, all you Krazy Kids out there..." ), particularly in the world of media and brand, amount to a significant degradation of our language or is it an acceptable "evolution" on the grounds that the message is more important than the messenger?

Someone wrote here that the new world abbreviators ("u know who u r") have nothing interesting to say or write. I think it may depend on whether the reader wants expedience or pleasure. Why dress an important point of view in flowers when you don't have to? Can you imagine Thomas Hardy writing an Executive Board report?

I suppose I prefer the flowers. The rest seems too throwaway somehow, expedient or not. Meanwhile, I'll continue to spot things that annoy me, that reinforce for me the idea of an insidious downward spiral in the quality of our language. I may eventually be cured of typus correcticus, but I suspect that by then it will be 2 late.