Spelling isn't orthography, spelling is a part of orthography. Orthography includes word breaks, punctuation, spelling, emphasis and other things.

And you're absolutely correct about grammar, some languages have grammar without having conjugations. Chinese, as an example, doesn't have conjugations at all and relies upon particles to communicate aspects rather than having a verb be conjugated.

My point was that it would make sense for english to categorize every language mistake as grammatical mistake, because as you two said conjugation may be prominent or non existant given the language (latin languages for instance have such a complex conjugation that verbs can be written in several dozens of way depending on ... many things).

My point was just expressing the fact that in french schools, we usually don't categorize all mistakes as grammar. But through this thread I indeed learned that even in french "by definition" most of those aspects are part of grammar. Example : in french, when someone writes something like "what r u doin ?", nobody says it is bad grammar, I know that everybody says it's bad orthography (at least ....those who know what orthography is).

its very hard to tell difference between proper Grammar and and improper Grammer

Feel free to prove otherwise.

link: http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/tech_journals/mokusatsu.pdf

I think grammar is always an important part of languages.
However for lovers of correct pronounciation:

Sounds like corpse, corps, horse and worse
I will keep you, Susy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy.

http://www.mipmip.org/tidbits/pronunciation.shtml

Well, it essentially is correct spelling, but I suppose it's a slightly broader consideration of that in context for the sake of syntax. But, that end consideration hinges off spelling.

Grammar is important because using poor grammar could possibly lead to people thinking that you are less intelligent than you truly are. Another possible negative outcome created by poor grammar is failing grammar tests and quizzes which could possibly create hindrances to your education.

That's only a single source. If historians aren't reporting it, that's a very bad sign for the validity.

It also states directly "Within 10 days the decision to drop the bomb was made". Again, correlation does not imply causation. That's a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.

I am well versed with the nature of logical fallacies and the process of ratiocination to arrive at a logical conclusion. It has been established that the mistranslation did act as a catalyst for the bomb being dropped....there is no question about that.

Since you lack knowledge of it does not necessarily delineate that the incident is false.

Links:

1:http://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/21/opinion/l-good-translation-might-have-prevented-hiroshima-322089.html
2: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/20/046.html
3: http://www.johnwcooper.com/papers/atomicbombtruman.htm
4.http://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/favart/index-fra.html?lang=fra&lettr=indx_titls&page=9P4IeDVi-GJc.html (Another government site)
5.http://books.google.co.in/books?id=JTvdhvkVAB0C&pg=PA120&dq=mistranslation+atom+bomb&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VLsBU7HxKMnsrAfk6IDgCA&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=mistranslation%20atom%20bomb&f=false

Well, there is a possibility that this is an urban legend considering that you cannot believe everything that you read in print but I haven't come across any information that debunks it as yet.

There is question about that. Just because you find a few other places that list the same information doesn't increase the validity.

And just because it's written does not necessarily delineate the incident is true. The burden of proof falls on the claimant, not the person rebuking it.

Quite a possibility that this is urban legend. Again, I point to exhibit A which is historian's take on the subject. Media is not obligated to report truth.

~

To take one portion of one source you listed : "Furthermore, Sakomizu suspects that the misinterpretation on the part of the United States was intentional. "

Which basically implies that, at best, this was used as an excuse. A fabricated excuse at that. Which further implies that they had already decided based on other factors, and allowed this to be a scapegoat.

But the weasel word there is "suspects" which means, even as these accounts go and their attribution to this any mistranslation, the connection isn't absolutely proven, only speculative.

Another source backs this line of thought with "Truman was unable to alter the terms of unconditional surrender because the cry for unconditional surrender was too strong and had gained too much momentum" also implying that they had made their decision to carry through regardless of something as trivially impacting as a mistranslation. In other words, they already had adequate motive, which fits with the historical accounts.

Additional evidence to support this comes in the form of the following :

"The allied newspapers interpreted the word mokusatsu to mean “reject" (Brooks, 164). Truman concurred with this definition and said, “[Japan's] leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum” (Brooks, 164). Since the American newspapers reported the interpretation of the controversial word to mean "reject" Japan was able to see America's interpretation of their response. However, “there is no record of an effort by the Japanese government to overtly or covertly transmit to the Allies any hint that mokusatsu did not precisely reflect its attitude” (Frank, 234). Additionally if Hirohito, who read the newspapers daily, had been concerned about the ambiguity of Japan's response and possible misinterpretation of its meaning, to this very day "we have no record of it" (Bix, 91).

Japan's secret cables intercepted and decoded by the United States failed to suggest Japan had any desire to surrender."

They basically state that although Japan had the means and information necessary to correct any miscommunication, they chose not to do so. Again, implying that his was merely an excuse to act.

Again, none of these sources are necessarily credible which calls into question anything written by them.

http://www.gog.com/forum/general/fuck_you_all_giveaway/post130

That and the next post :)

Punctuation is important too...............

Grammar, including capitalization and punctuation is very important.

It's the difference between knowing your shit, and knowing you're shit.