Au contraire, deploying [sic] was merely an attempt to live up to your standards of cleanness and concision (although that standard applies to words but, paradoxically, not to language? Puzzling.) I'm glad you qualified your "beneficial to the language" diktat.

You see, regarding [sic], I feared that a less fortunate reader than myself might get snagged on the absence of the possessive apostrophe: " 'conveys ones meaning' — What the dickens does that mean?" So I took it upon myself to swoop in with [sic] and save those hypothetically befuddled readers...just like how you averted disaster by clarifying exactly what "a poe" was, right? We're both so very gallant, you and I.

I'm a newcomer here, but I read through some of your comment history and apparently this isn't the first time the question of dickishness (in conjunction with you, specifically) has come up on hubski. I saw that you've written, "The problem here is that some people really want to be offended." In light of your utterly gratuitous "poe" clarification, we could revise that: some people here are really looking for ways to be confused.