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

The inherent flaw to the premise of your argument is in your presumption that the language regulates itself, or has some official regulatory agency. None exists because the language is what it is (even if agencies help codify rules, spellings, etc.); any regulatory consequences of misspellings and anti-grammarians, however, are decided and implemented (or perhaps even imposed) by individuals on an independent-judgment basis--not by the language itself. If one does not like the "standardized spelling and grammar in the United States English language" then one may pursue the rules and spelling of many other languages currently in existence throughout the world. In fact, if one truly had initiative, one could make his or her own language and never have to worry about being deemed "incorrect"—so long as one made this aspect of the neophyte language a fundamental foundation of the vernacular and its governance. But I digress. To claim something has "gone too far" is to allege that something steps out of its own boundaries; that something has offended its own accepted terms of existence and somehow persecuted or victimized another in the process. Yet you defeat your own argument [or the facet of it that I stated just above] that "standardized spelling and grammar in the United States English language" have gone "to[o] far" in declaring your free will to "type words how [you] want, with out spell check." Ergo, in your independence you exhibit no persecution from the language itself upon you; this, in turn, diminishes your accusation that the standardized spelling and grammar of said language have "gone to[o] far." If you receive punishment or scrutiny for misspelling words or misplacing modifiers, for example, then it is the sole judgment of the individual(s) under whose authority you are subordinate; in other words, the correct spellings and grammatical usage rules do not chase you down, bang on your door, intimidate you with riots and threatening phone calls, or even correct themselves. Rather, another individual has decided that the correct usage of the language is more important than the exercise of your allegedly liberated sense of depicting it. So blame the individuals, not the language. Hate the player, not the game. In direct response to your contentions: [1] Who literally forces—thus, going "to[o] far"—you to use correct spelling and grammar in your informal sentences anyway? Perhaps, rather than blaming the language and its usage rules, you should find better friends. [2] "Spelling NAZIs are generally annoying This pretty much goes with out saying but I will say it either way." I may agree, though I would add, perhaps not as annoying as willfully, flamboyantly lazy language-welfare recipients. [3] Again, if you accept the terms of the game, you accept the consequences of playing by those terms. If an individual independently chooses not to listen to you because of a grammatical error in your oral communication, for example, it is that individual with whom you have a problem—not with the language itself. Don't shoot the messenger. Lastly, I will use your very own quote from Mark Twain to make my final counterpoint: "[T]he ability to spell correctly is a talent, not an acquirement." Perhaps, Mr. Twain. But even if I concede that as true, one thing the quote fails to mention is that talent is malleable; put differently, one can still work to better and strengthen one's talents over time, if the right attitude and commitment to do so exists. One may be a very talented drummer, but it takes practice and experience over time to fine-tune that talent; the same goes with the vast majority of other available talents, including spelling and grammatical usage. Thus, in conclusion, for the reasons I stated above, the "standardized spelling and grammar in the United States English language, both written and spoken" have NOT "gone to[o] far in regulation." Rather, my opponent's discomfort with the language, but more likely, his willing acceptance of sub-standard performance of it, is the true root of his discontent. I urge a CON vote.