"Danforth and Hans have been on my case for along time with the spelling and sentence structure B.S."
When you meet someone in real life there are many ways in which you can judge them and their character: Their name, their hygiene, their clothes, their demeanor, their knowledge and use of their language, their body English.
If that person is disheveled, has bad hygiene, and generally appears that they don't care about themselves, we interpret that as that person not caring about the people they're with.
There was a Star Trek TOS episode (Mirror, Mirror) where Kirk pointed out that it was easier for their characters to pass as "bad" in the alternative universe than it was for their "bad" counterparts to pass as civilized on the "good" universe.
Whether you like it or not, those are the things (among many) that we use to judge the people we meet in real life. That is human nature.
Anonymous posters on Internet messages boards have just their ideas, and their command of their language to present those ideas, as their only way of presenting themselves to others. That's all others have to judge them by.
Now, this is not to say that the occasional typo is to be the end-all. No more than, in real life, when a person has had a bad day and comes across as less than civilized.
This is also not to say that an anonymous poster's "shtick" can't, in and of itself, be a way of self definition (see: Dethspud).
But when anonymous posters care so little for others, as evidenced by their constant mangling of the English language, then it is fair to judge that person accordingly (see: bushlover2).
And when an individual makes it their shtick a continual condemnation of teachers, and constantly proves that they can't handle even the most basic command of the language, then it is fair to judge them accordingly, as well (see: MENSAKOOK).
This, too, is human nature.
