Standardized Spelling and Grammar has and is gone and going to far.

By your rationale, basically anytime someone is corrected, it exhibits arrogance, egotism, legalism, and intolerance on behalf of the critic—and even "murders" someone else's dream. But the crux of your flawed rationale is that you confuse negligence as tolerance. This is revealed by applying your standard to other actions and jobs: The owner of a restaurant bursts through the door to fire the dishwasher because his performance is shoddy, at best; cleaning the dishes thoroughly is what's considered "right" or "correct." Yet by your rationale, the dishwasher should be allowed to wash some dishes less thoroughly than others ("variant cleanliness" perhaps) because chastising his overall performance might "MURDER…[his] dreams and ambitions"—possibly worse than having his spelling corrected. A surgeon stitches up a patient after surgery, but skips some suture positions; the patient later wants to sue for malpractice, and the hospital wants to release this doctor and possibly call for license revocation. However, with your rationale applied to this situation, the patient should be careful because such criticism and legal action might "take…the JAZZ out of the [wound-suturing procedure]." If you think I'm taking your rationale to an extreme, that's fine: that would also prove my point. Correcting spelling and grammatical errors is NOT an act of life and death, nor does it regularly place individuals receiving constructive criticism in unsafe, dangerous, or threatening situations and environments. Therefore, it does NOT go too far. Standardized spelling is what it is. Again, hate the player, not the game. Or else don't play. You said: "If standardized spelling would accept many more alternative spellings then the errors would no longer be errors but also correct. This CHANGE doesn't hurt anybody but infact prevents your example." To quote, well, myself: "[S]pelling correctly is harmless, too." Spelling correctly, in fact, is less harmful than even variant spelling or placation to/acceptance of it. I suspected that your lawyer/law school comment was a joke; I just had no idea how it was relevant to the debate. I'm glad to see you acknowledged any such relevance was nonexistent. To your sixth contention, variety isn't so pleasing when it forces one to take the slack of those not willing to work as hard or be as diligent. As to your son's journal entry: I'm not quite sure what to make of this, but as you wrote his thoughts, it seemed like his teacher was laughing at the fact that the students had Physical Education—not at his spelling. After all, the teacher laughed so much "Becas we have P.E." There you have it; it seems your (hopefully very, very young) son's teacher thinks P.E. is a lot funnier than spelling and grammatical errors. You also said: "[O]ne should not be so burdened with such strict spelling laws and their over inflated since of worth as bestowed upon them by the spelling nazis." That said, one should be EVEN LESS burdened to "dumb down" one's own hard work and discipline (with learning and practicing correct spelling and grammar) to better placate the hurt feelings of those not willing to do the same. With avid reading comes a better comprehension of spelling and grammar; I favor allowing prospective employers an opportunity to sense which potential employees are better read, or better prepared to not publicly embarrass the company if communication via said employee becomes, or already is, an asset. And if the problem is a learning disability, then such information is submitted and considered for employment, as well. But to say an employer would be wrong for considering basic knowledge important in deciding whom to hire, is ludicrous. As to your response to my first rebuttal comment on slavery: So we should replace allegedly being slaves "to overburdening standardized spelling rules and regulations"—with being slaves to the hurt feelings of those who cannot handle the expectation of diligence, discipline, and excellence? Substituting one form of slavery (by your own admission) for another would not likely solve anything. No real problem exists, but it one did, it would not be fixed by merely replacing your alleged "Spelling Nazis" with Spelling Trotskyists. For all of these reasons, I have continued to demonstrate why current standardized spelling and grammar in the United States English language, both written and spoken, have NOT gone too far in regulation. I urge a CON vote.