Split this! (or, Correcting grammar on the Internet is the last refuge of a scoundrel)

To the CiN Weekly staff blog commenter who includes a split infinitive in his reasons for never reading the publication again:

You might want to read this.

This is probably as good a time as any to talk about another grammar-related pet peeve: the habit some Internet scrappers have of using their opponents' poor grammar to rebut their argument. Yes, of course, a perfectly turned (and spelled, and punctuated) phrase lends strength to an argument. But a misplaced comma in your opponent's thesis does not invalidate it. Besides, criticizing others' grammar opens one up to all sorts of attacks on one's own use of the English language (as I have found out myself).

The example of the blog comment isn't the best, since it's referring to something that appeared in print and is therefore held to a higher standard than your average flame war - but we'll use it anyway, since the dynamics at work here are interesting.

Here, commenter "bw" seems to have us on the ropes with a barrage of intellectual superiority: factual error! another factual error! obviously you don't know your facts! aargh! Then he pauses ... and: "Split infinitive," he tosses off nonchalantly, intending it as a rhetorical gob of spit on our bruised and bleeding credibility.

But the effect is quite different. By using a grammatical error as an argument (and a false grammatical error at that!), the entire argument is cheapened. Suddenly, "bw" is transformed from a stalwart warrior for truth to a bitter troll who has to dig and scrabble for fodder for his nitpicking complaints. Suddenly, the rest of his points seem somehow less valid. (An example: How dare we say the PSP and DS were released in late 2004 without informing readers that this was the original Japanese release, not the American one? Well, um, we dare.)

Remember, dear readers: Grammar is a powerful thing. Do not use it as a weapon unless it truly is called for.