Ah, but you see, my post was constructive not unconstructive, as it was written non-derogatorily and in a topic-relevant manner.
Not only does it therefore not fall foul of the letter of the provision, it also does not fall foul of the spirit of the provision, which is palpably to prevent threads being derailed by bad-faith nitpicking. My intervention was in good faith and in response to a basic grammatical error which compounded across more than one post.
If an employer received a job application or saw a specimin from a current employee which misspelled one of the three words above, there is a decent chance of it being highly negative to their perception of the quality of the individual's education.
It's an easy deficiency to rectify; you just need a clear and engaging illustration of the right context for each spelling. That is what I provided.
Good luck to a society which treats as a tort a good-faith, constructive aid to a glaring grammatical error which is in the interest of the intended recipient(s) to digest.
