Because when a person has no way of achieving satisfaction in real life (s)he has to attempt to achieve it on-line (which itself is a part of real life, but you get the picture). Sometimes this manifests itself by the person trying to make other random people (s)he communicates to through the Internet as miserable as him-/herself. Seeking satisfaction in that manner makes the person unable to see near-future consequences and thus they do these things despite the fact that the obvious outcome of it will be the *appropriate forum punishment*. Yes, it's that simple.
As for how I deal with it, for example: relax, sit, back, close your eyes and listen to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQo869a7VSY.
Your mix of wisdom, memorizing avatar, and calm music are a much welcome piece to this place I call the interwebs. Even if I have never heard of that band (Singer? I'm not sure, it's not in English. Very soothing, none-the-less.) This is the exact same conclusion I came to many times before deciding that it can't be just that simple. But it might be, that's why I'm here.
There can also be a line that is crossed when something that someone is asking takes on a completely different meaning based on the vocabulary or spelling used, and when the responders become confused or answer on different subject the OP can become annoyed, which can lead to arguments. Though, I find personally that I really don't want anything to do with someone who makes blatantly no effort to spell accurately.
Very VERY good point. There are always circumstances that can bend the general opinion of a specific topic, and this is one of those. I point again to the Grammar Nazi 'Lite' group, as I've seen them pull through in times like these, but more often than not, the thread becomes useless in the end. I can only hope that as time goes on, threads like that can be better translated by the Interdock Saints.
There are people who will take any form of grammatical correction as a personal attack, regardless of the situation that lead to it. There are many reasons that can lead to a person choosing to correct another's grammar, the least of which is to attack that person (there are far more subtle and clever ways to do that).
Say you are in a debate over something. It's been going on for some time now, and suddenly the other person corrects your grammar. You need to take a moment, look at it, and figure if that really is an attack on you, because it may be completely harmless in intended nature. However, in a heated debate feelings sometimes get a little mixed, and as such you can take something perfectly harmless as an attack. We've all probably done it.
The distinction between someone attacking you over grammar and someone correcting a mistake is much more than something that can be waved off as just semantics, and a difference that you can VERY easily overlook in a debate, especially if you see your opposition as "the enemy". Especially in the case where someone has a pet peeve about spelling (AKA: the grammar nazis). Their responses may seem very offensive, but they mean no harm about it, but rather it is something that is almost automatic for them (which is actually why such heavy-handed grammar correction is against the rules here, IIRC)
This is a valid point, very valid. And no matter how pure that correctors intentions are, I still sympathize with the correctee. I'm guessing it's because their pet peeve is the opposite of mine. That simply can't be helped. It's been a long time since I realized the exact point you're making here and I'll admit, way back when, I would get offended (unfairly) when corrected.
I do completely agree with you here. I can't help but wonder, in the middle of a heated debate, why someone would get sidetracked like that? Perhaps a Grammar Nazi could clear it up? (I'm not saying it's wrong to correct people's grammar or spelling, but I've personally never felt the need to do it. And more times than not, I see such corrections used to try to invalidate any prior arguments. Usually not by the Grammar Nazi himself, though.)
Slipping this in down here...
DEFRON -
Edit: basically, my response was not directed at any one particular poster, but the thread as a whole. What you see as an attack may not actually be an attack. It is doubly-hard to make the distinction when you are clouded with a heated debate with the person in question.
I understand that it can be difficult to distinguish between pure intentions and trolling. It's something I do try to keep in mind. I notice a 'lost in translation' sort of deal through the interwebz that often comes up at the worst possible times. So your edit is something I hope everyone keeps in mind through this, and all other, discussion out there in the wild wild webasaur.