I have found, since I started writing seriously, that pretty much everything I read has to be proof read. It is fun to point out the faults of a fellow writer. Reactions are also interesting.
Many years ago, my first task when I arrived at Church was to pick up the weekly bulletin, to read through it, and then to point out the mistakes to the writer. As you can imagine, at first this was seen as helpful, but as time went on, it was less help and more frustration. Why was he frustrated? I was only trying to help.
Well, that was the start of proof reading everything that came into my hands in the way of reading matter.
One time that I wish I didn't do this is at the moment. I have been "studying" for a test. The information is around history, dates, statistics, etc., ,my weakest points. I have been very half-heartedly reading, and yet, I find I'm proof reading with great enthusiasm. Determined to find fault.
Though a good thing when it comes to writing stories, books etc., I wonder if it is a good thing when reading other things. Unfortunately, the information I've been reading is from the government. They would, no doubt, not appreciate me pointing out their mistakes in a publication such as this.
Maybe I should just stick to proof reading and critiquing stories etc., it's safer. What do you think? Your opinions on the why's, when's and wherefore's of this subject would be interesting and greatly appreciated.