The first recorded grammatical debate in the comments section of Reds.com

an example of what reds.commenters probably look like

Reds.com has never been a haven for perfect grammar. Often times, fans omit simple forms of punctuation, such as periods.

Example: The bullpen didnt blow it the shortstop did he made one great play and then missed one right to him should have been a double play take 3 away 7 to 6 reds win

So, for a grammatical debate to take place on the reds.com posting board is similar to an etiquette debate taking place at a Crackerbarrel. The buffoonery began after reds.com beat reporter Mark Sheldon sent his game article to mlb.com during the eighth inning and assumed Coco Cordero would shut the door in the ninth. Not so fast. After the Reds scored an insurance run in the eighth (presumably after Sheldon sent in the article) and extended the lead to 4 (thereby erasing the save opportunity), Dusty ran out Mike Lincoln in the ninth. Before Sheldon could send an updated story to mlb.com, the old article posted on reds.com, with Coco Cordero notching a save. Sloppy? Yes. Forgivable? Yes.

Of course, a number of "commenters" from Reds.comment nation were quick to rape Sheldon and point out the glaring mistake (Hey Billy Bob, look at this, I dun found er mistake on this here computer). This is where history is made.

Commenter 1: hey mark sheldon...check your facts...Cordero did not pitch in this game. MLB.com approves your articles? Shotty at best.

Commenter 2: ...as for checking facts, yes, Sheldon got it wrong. At the same time, the word "shotty" is a misspelled (yes, the "s" is plural in misspelled) version of the Webster's-recognized word "shoddy." "Shotty" is what a redneck kills squirrels with or what a "gangsta" saws off. Check your facts.

RedlegsFan84: BTW, whoever was trying to correct grammar forgot that plural only refers to words, like nouns or adjectives, not singular letters. So the "s" in misspelled is not plural, there's just 2 of them. Thanks for playing, and remember, never correct grammar in a message board, no one cares!

Commenter 2: The word "plural" is defined as "two or more..." In other words, more than one. So two "S's" (to use the slang term for the plural of "s") is plural. Words can, indeed, also be plural. However, plurality is not simply limited to words. People/persons/peeps/boys/girls/homies/choose your slang term in multiple can also be said to qualify as "plural." The point was not to correct grammar, but rather to get some snotty smart@$ to back up off the ntz of a quality journalist who, due to deadline constraints, turned in his report in the 8th, and suffered the error of his editor missing his mistake. Look, we're faced with one of two options: get the posted article immediately, or wait for a well-edited, pretty, grammatically-correct version. Personally, as someone who was up at 7 and worked until 10, only tuning in for the full ninth inning, I'd like to get the general rundown, sans perfectionism. When all is said and done, I simply wanted to point that out, not correct what we both agree is irrelevant grammar. Grammatically- and intellectually-speaking, as one who has "it," I hate to see either flaunted, most especially by those lacking either or both.

Grooveleg: oh please. whoever mentioned the grammatical error in their post is a doosh. he [Mark Sheldon] is a professional journalist--somebody who eats, sleeps, and breathes grammar. you can't possibly think he read over it a second time and thought, "mmhmm... looks right to me!" [This guy thinks that Commenter 2 was correcting Sheldon's grammar]

Soapyjapan: I would have to say that there are multiple S's in the word misspelled. Plural is only a grammatical number, so it not supposed to be used like "the 's' is plural in misspelled". For an "s" to be pluralized, then it would look like S's. With that being said, misspelled is not spelled mis'spelled, because that would be stupid.

Well, there you have it. I hope you were as entertained as I was. We now have the first grammatical debate on reds.com documented. Whew, that was tiring, but rewarding. And the best part...it's probably not over yet.

If you would like to take part in mostly mature, friendly and intellectual online Reds discussions, I highly recommend Redszone. All you have in that forum is your name--a scary thing--but at least fans are held accountable for what they say in there. For all we know, Reds.com could be infested with Cubs fans working sabotage.