🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4412@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
>                        Nearly all such systems, and certainly Unix, have
>some form of spelling checker program available.  While these programs may
>not cover all the obscure technical terms used here and elsewhere (Unix's
>dictionary is pathetically thin), they still leave _no excuse_ for
>misspelling words like "separate", not to mention common typographical
>errors.

Unfortunately, spelling checkers do not catch homophones/homonyms which are
a large portion of the total spelling errors that _I_ see.  It's easy to write
a program to check for these, but it's very time-consuming to run them and
for social notes -- Usenet postings are largely social -- it's a real pain to
run ANY sort of spelling check.

We read an article, press "F" for followup, write our response, and then
continue to the next article.  If I were reading this on a PC, running a 
terminal emulation program, I'd probably have an as-you-type spelling checker
running... but I'm using a terminal, so that's not going to happen.

Video terminal manufacturers COULD include an as-you-type spelling checker,
but I don't really think it's worth the 100kB of ROM -- especially when cost/
performance of the terminal is a consideration.

George Emery        ...!tektronix!sequent!crg3!george
(503) 257-9731  (voice, home)

>
>Failure to use a spelling checker, particularly if you know you're a poor
>speller, is an insult to your audience.  It says you don't think they're
>worth the trivial effort of a few keystrokes to clean up your act.
>
>-- 
>The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com)  Illegitimati Nil
>Citicorp(+)TTI                                                 Carborundum
>3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (213) 452-9191, x2483
>Santa Monica, CA  90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe