1 Space: Awesome. 2 Spaces: Awful – A Test for a Certain Mr. Nosis – UPDATED

Claims the two-spacing treasonist Glyph Nosis (I suspect that’s not even his real name!):

The second space after a period gets dropped from display anyway, so the old habit gets overridden automagically  AFAICT. (And you can take my second space, when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers!)

Good 1-space people may wish to avert their eyes from the following. Mr. Nosis (possibly not his real name) is wrong, wrong, wrong:

TWO SPACES AFTER PERIOD: Wait a second, do the two spaces after a period actually get auto-corrected?  Let me see.  I don’t think that’s the case, but Glyph says I’m wrong.  I guess it’s possible something got changed in the system’s autocorrecting features since last I checked, but I think he’s confused. ONE SPACE AFTER PERIOD: Wait a second, do the two spaces after a period actually get auto-corrected? Let me see. I don’t think that’s the case, but Glyph says I’m wrong. I guess it’s possible something got changed in the system’s autocorrecting features since last I checked, but I think he’s confused.

The dreadful truth will be clear, for those with eyes to see… Even if the system did correct two-spacey sentences to the morally correct one-spacey type, true progressive patriots would still prefer to have their archives polluted as little as possible by two-spacey original drafts. Here’s the email I sent to the League list this morning, leading to this declaration of war by “Glyph” on all that’s right and true in sacred typographical matters:

Just got finished going through a pending post in which the author – who shall remain nameless – put two spaces after every period. That meant I had to go through the piece sentence by sentence to correct it. Once upon a time, I had to break myself of two-spacery, too. When you put two spaces after a period, it tends to suggest that you learned to touch-type in ancient times, using typewriters defaulting to “monospaced” (every letter and punctuation mark no matter how wide using the same amount of space), rather than “proportional” fonts (every letter gets the space it needs). Period+2 was imposed to make the former more readable. Every font we use at OT is proportional (except for a very occasional sample of computer code that will be set off in typewriter-looking, Courier font), and will have been designed with Period+1 in mind.

Every modern typographer agrees on the one-space rule. It’s one of the canonical rules of the profession, in the same way that waiters know that the salad fork goes to the left of the dinner fork and fashion designers know to put men’s shirt buttons on the right and women’s on the left. Every major style guide—including the Modern Language Association Style Manual and the Chicago Manual of Style—prescribes a single space after a period. (The Publications Manual of the American Psychological Association, used widely in the social sciences, allows for two spaces in draft manuscripts but recommends one space in published work.) More at: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/01/space_invaders.html


As to how Mr. Nosis arrived at his notion: Not only does Mr. Nosis prefer to type two spaces rather than one, but – I have no choice here but to reveal the contents of past private communications between us – he retains a suspicious, some might say unnatural, affection for the “Text” editor. It is true that two spaces entered into the Text editor will be corrected into one space upon movement back to the (to be preferred by most Writers) “Visual” editor: Two spaces entered after a period on the Visual side will be retained. The former good and proper correction of misspent space reflects a morally unimpeachable decision in favor of the 1-space rule by WordPress developers, who also, it seems, trust that anyone entering two spaces after a period on the Visual side must have a good reason for doing so – as hard as that might be to imagine! Said developers apparently didn’t anticipate the misleading assertions and notions of spacey scoundrels.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins