Many of us share your disgust for Pabst's bigotry, which is not bound by his feelings about 'nigs', as he calls them (African Americans). This isn't the place to enumerate his prejudices.Quote from Thunderdog:
Not to worry, RR, the article is fairly innocuous. Apart from a few grammatical errors, which have become Pabst's signature, the content is fairly pedestrian. Despite my growing disgust for Pabst, I would have given him his due had the content been remotely original. On the plus side, the splash screen on his web site is genuinely creative and impressive. Perhaps it is even original. I expect this display to be the principal draw for his services.
Quote from oktiri:
NO PERSONAL ATTACKS PLEASE.

Quote from traderNik:
I read the article and while you are right about the grammar (which I would describe as terrible), the fact is that the vast majority of readers won't notice it, because their own language skills are just as bad.
Very good point. Some people might intentionally dumb down their writing in order to avoid sounding snotty. I'm sure my writing comes off as pretty snotty sometimes.Quote from Brandonf:
Actually you are much better off writing how your audience speaks, your conversion can do down quit a bit if you come off as a snotty, and in a lot of cases perfectly correct grammar has a way of making you look that way.
I agree that text can be informal. In fact, I prefer simple sentences presented in a straightforward, almost conversational manner. However, an article doesn't have to be grammatically incorrect to come across as casual. As it happens, Pabst's article has far fewer errors than most of his posts here at ET. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that he was trying to clean it up. He just missed a few spots. But that's neither here nor there. I only made a passing remark about the grammar. The principal focus of my earlier post was on content.Quote from Brandonf:
Actually you are much better off writing how your audience speaks, your conversion can do down quit a bit if you come off as a snotty, and in a lot of cases perfectly correct grammar has a way of making you look that way.
T-Dog, sometimes it's hard for people like us to see this, but even the phrase 'the principal focus' would jar on a lot of people. They would say 'the main point' and would not attempt to syntactically link the word 'focus' with the word 'on', because they don't know if it's 'principle' or 'principal' (Pabst falls into this category, as we have seen in his posts in P & R, which are rife with [rife with!!] spelling and grammatical errors, despite his self-professed IQ of 141). Please know that I am in no way suggesting you don't know what you're talking about; this is IMO only. Your paragraph was very well constructed.Quote from Thunderdog:
The principal focus of my earlier post was on content.
P.S. I don't think this post has any grammatical errors. Does that mean that I came across as a "snotty" to anyone?
Quote from Brandonf:
One suggestion, if you have some great PR like Yahoo covering your work you should consider sending people to a landing page, not a home page. Home pages are actually very bad for converting first time visitors. Get them to go to your landing page, give them your info and then from then on go to your homepage, which looks great.