1. You're right, and I fixed that. Thanks for pointing that out.

2. While I see where you're coming from, I don't agree with you. The main thing I look at is the rules of pronunciation; without their diacritics, facade would be pronounced "fackade," uber as "ubber," a la as "uh la" or "eh la," and so on. And just because a word is in the dictionary doesn't mean it's appropriate for all cases, which I mentioned in my post. I see the use of the words without diacritics, and thanks for letting me know what they're called, as sloppy and a sign of little care being put into the work.

3. I was in fact trying to say the opposite of what you understood it to mean. I think I made it clearer, but if I didn't, let me know.

4. Maybe this is true, but I'm going to keep the post up. You could make the argument that blogging is technology, although it would be a weak one. I believe the purpose of the blog is to spread information, and the wonder of RSS is the ease of skipping stories you're not interested in. While it is good to stay on topic, variety is good, and since you found it interesting enough to comment, I hope others liked it as well.

1. I believe your post is in fact written in the first-person, whilst it is true that addressing a 'you' person would usually indicate second-person there are several places in the article where you refer to yourself as 'I', indicating the very definition of the first-person.

2. While it is true that English has borrowed a lot of words from different languages, verbatim, it is now acceptable to type words such as 'facade' or 'uber' without leaving them in their full grammatically correct diacritic glory as they have become so very common. Check in a dictionary and you will often get two spellings for these kinds of words, facade and façade, for example. However, I do appreciate that using diacritics often adds emphasis to a word and can often work for comedic effect (just don't use them too much, you start to look rather pompous).

A great deal of English is made up of Latin and if we were still using all the diacritics from that language most of our writing today would look very different.

3. I wasn't quite sure what point you were trying to make on your last grammatical note, concerning apostrophes. I'm sure I've simply misinterpreted your writing but I'm not quite sure whether you were saying that it is acceptable to write 'the 1990's were an absolutely sick ride' instead of 'the 1990s were an absolutely sick ride'. The latter is of course correct. No one possess the 1990s. At least, not yet.

4. Lastly, I think you have probably broken a great deal of the journalistic conventions you talk about by actually publishing a how-to grammar and content advice page in public on the blog. This isn't technology content, this isn't what people come here for. As interesting as the article may be and as much effort as may have been put it into it, it might be better saved for back-end publication, just for your writers, no?