I can understand the distraction, however there and their and they're can easily be comprehended in context.
I don't understand how you can judge someone a dope.
Most things can absolutely be comprehended in context, however, it does require that those who understand and use the correct spellings, parts of speech, possessive terms, definitions (in context), punctuation and whole words themselves make an extra effort to comprehend what the author is trying to convey (which most of us usually do, but are we not allowed to vent our own frustrations?).
Many times, here on EvC and elsewhere, the author misuses many or most/all of the above and that makes it very difficult for the readers to get what the author is trying to say.
It becomes a great annoyance when others take the time to correct the more egregious mistakes and the abuser refuses to learn. This can trickle down to the smaller mistakes (e.g. they're, their, there) because someone who won't correct their smaller mistakes can almost certainly be counted upon to completely ignore corrections of their larger ones.
Obvious typos are easily forgiven (the subtitle above, for instance) and we all make them, no matter what our education level.
Occasionally disorganized posts can also be easily forgiven. We all have days/nights when we are distracted, drunk, lacking sleep, annoyed and/or emotionally charged (I have been guilty of all of the above recently).
It is the consistently sloppy and disorganized posts which grate on the nerves of those who want to participate in educated debates or, at least, hope that what they say gets acknowledged. Sadly, this does not often happen. Those who persist in using incorrect definitions, spellings and grammar, despite correction, often won't retain the pertinent information in detailed posts.
One reason for this, IMO, is that they already had a reply in mind before any response to their initial questions and their eyes just glaze over any perceived irrelevancies (the definitions of "theory" and "singularity" come to mind).
Another reason could be (and has been brought up in this thread) is that sloppy writing often reveals sloppy thinking. Especially when the author has the luxury of a leisurely response, like in internet debate boards.
A few initial (or occasional) gaffes are usually overlooked, but it is when it becomes a pattern that others will begin to call you on it. Also, corrections are not reserved for the opposition...if you look through this forum you will find many people on the same "side" correcting and calling each other on their more obvious and/or consistent mistakes.
Many posters here actually encourage correction and are grateful when someone dispels a misconception that they had.
I am grateful for the chance to learn here. I try not to take it personally when I am corrected and I back off and take the opportunity learn when I realize I am over my head (which is a lot).
It seems all objections to incorrect spelling is from personal judgements and frustrations and nothing to do with the author.
The frustrations part is true, but I haven't often seen someone attacking someone else for poor spelling or grammar right off the bat without addressing their first post(s).
It usually comes after a period of reading almost incoherent posts and trying to pick out the relevant pieces. Then, after a few rounds of this, the attacks on spelling and grammar and definitions come.
Whenever I see these "attacks," I see it as an opportunity for the guilty party to try to present a more coherent argument. Why not take it? If they don't and they, instead, insist on repeating the same mistakes, then we can rightly call them a "sloppy thinker."
If someone can present a coherent argument and then continually misuses a term or spelling, they should still be expected to be called on it (NJ's usage of "specie" comes to mind) and correct it because it does detract from the point if the terminology isn't right (it shows a lack of understanding).
My last point is that I would take it as a sign of interest in what I have to say if someone asked me for clarification. It can often come across as snide and "superior," but it is in your best interest (as a participant on this forum and for your own general knowledge) to absorb the advice given to you, let the "attitude" roll off of your back and re-present your argument using the new knowledge you have gained.
Unless, you (general "you") are just basking in the frustration of others and/or don't care and won't hear a word anyone says, much less me.
In that case, I expect a similar thread to be started shortly by someone else who feels slighted for their inability to be understood.
"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -
The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea
™ Version 4.2