There's an objective, scientific method for determining who is rightfully "TSC's official typoist": count the number of typos in each claimant's argument.werster's typos
First things first Stefan! It has the title of "offical" not "official"
In werster's opening remarks, there are two typos in as many sentences. "Things" should take an apostrophe to denote possession, and there should be a comma after "offical" to parse the two thoughts as contrasting.
You right and well know that means jack squat and won't hold up anywhere
A mistake acceptable in spoken English, but which is a typo when written. There should be two "that"'s in the first clause, the first to designate what Stefan knows and the second to represent his argument.
And this just means nothing, I have typoed the same phrase a good and well 6 times, and -still- not corrected myself.
In this context, the comma in bold is grammatically incorrect. I don't feel like explaining why. Learn standard English if you disagree.
-I'm- jumping to conclusions? I'd like to note that no where does it say that the typoist title is official, nor tsc, you have made that up yourself! So you can go ahead and waste your $500,000 Stefan because your evidence is worthless.
Aside from its status as one of the worst examples of English writing I've ever read, this sample contains several egregious typos. The word is 'nowhere'. The phrase 'no where' is clever as it implies the definite constraint of space, but given your idea it would not be appropriate emphasis. I would explain why "nor tsc" is a typo if the idea made sense; however, it's such a glaring flaw that the exact reasoning why is completely unnecessary. Finally, 'Stefan' should be spliced with commas to avoid a run-on sentence.
-clearly-, -intentionally-? And I'm still the one jumping to conclusions? With some proper research you'd find that "offical" was there before typoist even came into existeance in that signature.
The word 'clearly' is clearly "Clearly". Existence is misspelled.
...let's put a situation into play here. Say i name my child Dan. Does that mean every single Dan can sue me for identity theft?
Two more errors in capitalization, unless he means that the letter 'i' names its child Dan...in which case there would still be a typo because the verb would require conjugation for the third person singular of the English verb 'to name'.
Oh yes because "oh look, it says i did it, I must have" is undeniable proof Stefan.
There are several ways to correctly punctuate this sentence; werster didn't use any of them. I don't consider the bolded 'i' a typo because he's trivializing the validity of Stefan's argument by making it seem childish. As he is directly addressing Stefan, werster needs to use a comma there.
I'm sure you could find many people at TSC that would say that I too typo Stefan
This sentence is a mess. werster doesn't mean that he typos the word 'Stefan', he means to tell Stefan that he often typos.
...Aren't as well known? I'm -suure- you could prove that one Stefan.
The word 'suure' is not the word 'sure'.
One major problem though. "offical" and "TSC" aren't in the same sentence as typoist!
Either there should be a colon here, or a comma after 'problem'. If werster opted for the second method, he would need to capitalize 'offical'. I consider this double-dipping, so I'll only count the one typo.
18 for werster.Stefan's typos
I identify by my typos, as the name "typo" clearly suggests. Usernames are meant to characterize the person who is using them. using "typo" obvious implies I make frequent typos, and calling yourself any title with "typo" in the name (such as offical typoist) is stealing my identity and potentially redirecting attention or questions I'd be getting to you.
In the English language, the verb 'to identify' requires a direct object, absent in this case. Obviously, he should have capitalized the word "using" in that sentence. "Obvious" is obviously not 'obviously', when an adverbial form is required to correctly modify the action. The rest of the sentence is a trainwreck, but a stylistic one that we can't assess as the product of chronic typoing.
Let's see your proof?
There isn't a typo here. I just wanted to say that the question form was a terrible rhetorical device.
If you are unable to see how the "typoist" title is given the defining modifier "TSC", then you are unable to comprehend basic sentence structure.
Without the word 'by', the phrase "the defining modifier "TSC" becomes the direct object of the sentence. You give the modifier to the title instead of saying you can infer that the title is based on the modifier. I'd also argue the comma after "TSC" is unnecessary, but that's purely a stylistic consideration.
Also, by the fact that you're telling me to waste my $500,000, I assume that you've settled for paying me $500,000? Alright, you can set up a PM to find my paypal/ address for a check.
Unnecessary space. +1 for Stefan.
5 typos for Stefan.
There are 18 typos from werster vs. 5 typos from Typo. I opine that Stefan has outgrown his status as "tsc's offcal typoist", and the title is rightfully werster's. In his prime, Stefan was the undisputed typoist, but presently werster eclipses him in this compartment. werster isn't yet the all-time champion; he's just more prone to typos than the previously revered authority.
Edit: there's a typo in my first observation. "Thing's" expresses a contraction, there is no possession involved.