Depends on the situation.

If I'm playing a game with some friends and I'm just looking to bullshit with them, then not at all, but if I'm playing in a 1000 point buy in WTA against some of the top players, then it matters a lot.(at least to me it does)

It's a variable.

Of course poor spelling is not a sign of low intelligence. I can't even spell words I know. I always get the homonyms mixed up, there for their, your for you're. I know which are which but when I am writing quickly my brain gets it wrong. Then there are all the hard words. No chance for this dummy :(

Does small size matter? Discuss

Small words are easier to spell on the whole, hellalt

But big words impress the ladies:)

I will pay more heed to a person with proper grammar opposed to, "u ned to b mor gramaticly corekt man."

If you don't use punctuation I will immediately assume you are uneducated.

not the only thing big that impresses ladies hahha

I'd rather impress the ladies with my intelligence rather than my belly. Because I know that is what you are referring too.

*to, no too. Also, it is unnecessary anyway. : )

arrgg...messed up my own correction. It is necessary, but in the wrong place...

hahaa no no ZAZA it is my feet but they all say if you have big feet you have BIG....

SOCKS!!!!!!!!!1

no way ZAZA you were ENGLAND FUCK you hahah

While I probably shouldn't hold poor written English against any player on this site, I find that I often do. I find it difficult to exchange meaningful press with someone whose press is meaningless to me.

However, I acknowledge that I may be playing against a very tactically and diplomatically skilled player until his orders indicate otherwise. And sometimes they very clearly do that.

@spyman - 'I always get the homonyms mixed up, there for their, your for you're'; I think you're now mixing up homophones for homonyms :)

'homo' meaning same, 'phone' meaning sound therefore homophones have the same sound.

'homonyms' have the same name, like bank (somewhere to keep your money) and bank (by the side of a river).

Before I get a million responses about what a homonym is, I am aware that UK and USA definitions may vary.

You are quite correct Maniac. I have my homophones and homonyms mixed up. I am such an idiot!
*bangs head repeatedly on desk*
That's better. Now I know :)

@Maniac - going back to -ise vs. -ize. It's interesting to see the OED stance - however, I'd counter by saying that a lot of what the OED says is acceptable is not what is taught as correct, and that most media in the UK favours -ise.

@Spyman - getting homophones mixed up does annoy a lot of people. On other forums I frequent (yes, there are other forums on the internet :) ) people will spend pages ripping posters apart because of to/too, their/there or the use of 'could of' instead of 'could have'.

Overall, if someones message is coherent, small errors probably don't matter. If it's rambling and full of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, then I'm less likely to be well disposed to the writer. Of course, I have to be aware that not everyone's first language is English, but I often find that the non-natural speakers have the most coherent messages, even if the structure is a bit different.

Fowlers also favours ize spellings, and for a long time the OED did not even offer ise spellings as an alternative. ize spellings are also the norm in British scientific papers.

So yes it is not that the OED considers ize spellings as merely acceptable but rather the preferred spelling.

@Spyman - the Cambridge dictionary gives -ise as the norm in the UK.

-ise has become more common in the UK during the 20th century. And is it is favoured by Government and the media.
But OED and Fowlers are considered among the most esteemed authorities on the English language. And what I say about British scientific academia favouring -ize is true. Read anything by Richard Dawkings, for example, he always uses -ize spellings.
I think the reason -ise has become so popular in the UK is that -ize is favoured by the Americans, and the Brits are conscious of avoiding what they perceive to be Americanisms. But it is not true that -ize is an Americanism. This is a misconception.

Respect mah authoritah!!

lol

I love a good pedantic debate :)

@spyman - scientific papers are not the best guide to good English usage (I've read more than enough of them to know just how poor the writing is), and while there may well be academic and editorial style guides that are 'correct', 99% of the population will never read one. A good example is the sulfur/sulphur thing - all scientific literature will use the 'f' variant, everyone else will use 'ph'.

As current styles are that the UK uses -ise and the US -ize, then it's seen as an Americanisation by common usage, if not by fact.

@ spyman That get's into the issue of the language and it's ownership. I absolutely see the need to standardize the language so that the largest number of people can understand what is being conveyed, but at best grammar and mechanics an attempt to keep up with and stadardize something that is changing daily.

While I tend to agree with Maniac that spelling will be a hallmark of good writing for years to come. I disagree that it's a set or rigid thing, or that anyone can make it so despite their best efforts. Everyone who uses the language puts their own spin on it. We as grammarians merely sit on the sidelines saying that this is or that isn't the standard for our time period. In a few dozen years, when the texting generation becomes the general populace, it may become more and more acceptable to use the numeral 2 for the words "to, too, and two". It may seem odd to us, but many years ago in standard English it was possible to "starve" from overeating. That's because starve just meant to die. In much the same way it might have seemed odd to an Anglo-Saxon native speaker that hlafdige "one who kneads bread" would be pronounced lady with the connotations that it has today.

I'm yet another person who judges someone by the way they write - spelling, grammar, punctuation are important. The occasional slip is forgivable (and indeed expected, nobody is perfect all of the time) but l33t, txtspk and apostrophies that look to have been fired from a shotgun all make me consider someone to be of below average intelligence.

Certainly, if I were recruiting for a job, any CVs with simple mistakes on would get thrown straight into the dustbin. I can forgive a little more on the internet (it would be rude of me to expect perfect English from someone to whom it's the 3rd or 4th language) but I'll still ignore people that don't even try.

Ursa, are you channeling Eric Cartman?