[nkurz]

I agree that it isn't that typos and misspellings aren't that big of a deal, but I think they correlate significantly with clarity of thought. Making judgments based on superficial characteristics isn't necessarily a bad thing; the key is to make sure that one is choosing the right surfaces to look at.

For me, the disclaimer is a red flag, but the quality of the text countered it quite well. Should I presume his logic is positively correlated with his strength of sentence structure? Usually I do.

But for me, this was overridden by the attempt to cite fiction as an authority. Good fiction is good because it appeals to our sense of authenticity, not because it actually is authentic. Thus using fiction as an example is usually just arguing that something 'sounds right'.

I just watched a very good documentary on steriod use (Bigger Stronger Faster) that pointed out that the real Stallone's physique as depicted in the movie relied fairly heavily on steroids. Sure, there were lots of crunches, but heavy drugs as well. Is the real message of this article that deception (self or otherwise) is essential to entrepreneurial success?