Completely off-topic, but my pet peeve:

> (by the way, i'm sorry for my english skills)

If you feel the need to append this statement, that's a good sign that you don't need to. Your English is fine (should be "schools teach", not "schools teaches", and I wouldn't have used "sample for" there, but who cares -- it's clear and unambiguous). It's the morons who don't care that end up being painful to read.

> Completely off-topic, but...

If you feel the need to append this statement, that's a good sign your comment will detract from the discussion.

Touché :-)

Continuing further down your OT pet peeve: how would you distinguish between people who know their English isn't perfect and are sorry about it (without saying so, per your advice) and those "morons" who are unapologetic about the same?

Don't.

I have noticed that people tend to jump on others language skills in an indirect attack on the person when its the idea they disagree with. For some it is easier to dismiss an idea they do not agree with by attacking the person than refuting the argument.

Working with many foreigners I have run into the apology style more than once, they have good standing and do not wish to be dismissed for merely bad language skills. I live here and my use of the language is atrocious.

I've noticed three classes of bad English. The apologetic folk, who will often try to explain things in multiple ways, or be extra-verbose, in an effort to get their point across clearly. Second, the unapologetically bad folk, who write a semi-incoherent sentence and respond poorly to requests for clarification (often simply repeating the same sentence). Third, the lazy native (or fluent) speaker. This is an entirely new class of errors, which is easy enough to read through (being native and lazy myself), but sends a strong signal that I shouldn't place too much importance on what I'm reading.

Well, for those of us who fine at English, we can tell. The hard part is for you to determine if you yourself are correct.

It's more useful to invite constructive feedback than to apologize preemptively; that's what I'd recommend people do. Add onto this that, culturally, Americans tend to appreciate such invitations more than they appreciate apologies. (I can't speak to other cultures; I'm about 99% certain there are some major world-spanning ones where this is not true.)

I wish there was an easy and unobtrusive way to invite people to correct my English. Would it be okay to state that every once in a while in my comments? My opinion is that people don't like it, not because it's rude but because it carries the conversation off topic. I also wish there was a way to send a private message here to remedy that but maybe that's me over-complicating things.

If you're particularly worried about a specific post (for instance, you're uncertain of the right word when there are several words with similar pronunciations/spellings, or it's just longer than a normal post), I'd say just ask in that post. And regarding off-topic conversations, I say "meh". Most threads get derailed by far less productive side-discussions. I usually like to tuck corrections into actual conversation anyways. Respond normally, and then as an aside (may be first or at the end) comment on the correct spelling or usage of a word.

Put the request in your profile, maybe? A lot of people won't look there, but it's not like you need a high volume of feedback.

Certainly you could mention it as an offhand every so often, but the important thing IMHO is to make clear that you're looking to improve your English skills, as opposed to apologizing for whatever flaws you might have in your English.

The latter is usually needless, and can even imply that not knowing English well enough should be a source of shame, which is why it often draws calls saying not to apologize. It'd be like a 2m tall person apologizing for not being tall enough – you're already taller than most people, there's nothing to apologize for. ;)

You've managed to take this thread exactly in the direction the author was hopefully planning to avoid :) disclaimer or no, there is always someone ready to comment on the english either way

Which is why it's better to just avoid mentioning it and just always communicate to the best of your ability (unless say, you can't the word you are thinking of and want to reach out for help).

And your English is much better than our Turkish.

Thanks for suggestions :)

I tend to put sentences into google in order to verify that the structure / grammar / spelling of my writing has been used before. This makes writing longs posts very tedious and annoying, but I'm way to afraid to make any mistakes. Most of the time I end up deleting the whole post, just to be done with it. I wish there were more people like you who don't look down on people with poor english skills.

Anyhow, can anyone recommend a book or some articles on how to improve writing skills, especially of technical nature ?

Check out the posts by Gayle Lakkmann on quora[0] related to common English mistakes (you might have to register, but it sounds like almost exactly what you are looking for). It is focused a bit more on mistakes common to those from India, but it is worth checking out. Your English is very good, and I have no trouble following your sentences. Through your use of commas, your writing actually "flows" better than many native writers whose work I read.

Also, I apologize profusely for some of our ridiculous grammatical rules. I'm a native speaker, so I don't think much of it, but I'm amazed at how poor some of the "rules" are.

[0] - http://englishtips.quora.com/

Exactly what I was looking for, thanks so much!

Sorry to interrupt you but I was about to say the exact same thing.

I spend lot of time in Athens, and I would say Istanbul is more european than Athens. Not sure about rest of the country.

İstanbul is where I call "home" but I still don't think it is European at all. Not when compared to Athens or anywhere I've visited outside Turkey. İstanbul is... İstanbul. Everyone living there has a strong love/hate relationship with it.

What could have happened to Athens in the last five years that I haven't been there that makes you say that? You mean in terms of freedom of speech? If so, I seriously doubt that.

Mainly driving and attitude of people. Greece is different... Freedom of speech is problematic in entire Europe.

That seems a weird claim to make. What is problematic about freedom of speech in Europe?

I've spent time both in Athens and in Istanbul. Neither of them are European nowadays. Unorganized dirty jungles... Istanbul has a difference though, it's an unorganized mega jungle.

I don't understand how this is being downvoted without any reasonable explanation.

Didn't downvote, but if you write something like that, provide examples. It doesn't really address the parent comment, either. If they're both dirty jungles, what does that say about whether Istanbul is more or less European than Athens? Wouldn't the culture have something to do with that, also?

You made a racist statement. "Unorganized dirty jungles" of Asia in contrast to, presumably, tip-top, spotlessly clean, perfectly organized European cities...

How big do you think is a percentage of those who oppose such censorship in Turkey?

Government (and their partisan supporters such as some journalists, representatives) support their decision with the same old "think about children" argument.

For example this man in the video is the Minister of Transport, Maritime and Communication. He is the reponsible minister for internet in Turkey. Today some journalists asked him his opinions about Twitter ban and he responded "i will answer your question with another question. tell me what would you feel if someone opens a news twitter account with your wife's full name and shared photoshopped pics?".

(http://www.cnnturk.com/video/turkiye/ulastirma-bakani-elvani...)

Well, for your question: A lot of people saw that the ship is sinking and leaved it. The only people still supports erdogan are some business men who has some contracts with government, erdogan's inner circle and their base supporters who are mostly not well educated and don't have internet connection.

So, at least 40% of our country is against his censorship.

Most people are opposed to be censored. Not enough are opposed to censoring of others.

Bingo. This. Most people who are not mad about the twitter ban are those who are like "what is he supposed to do, let people perpetuate lies?" and "it's libel therefore it's okay to censor". But when they are limited in the same way, they get extremely angry (for example, when bloggers delete their comments, a practice I disagree with for the most part).

Apparently Erdogan only receives support from more rural and religious communities which is probably still more than 30% of the country.

He has got 15 million registered members for his party. mostly men not having any higher-education, minimum-wage government contract based workers. This way they feel like they are a part of a some bigger movement.

Turkey is not be a banana republic but their leaders are surely indistinguishable from such ones.