🚀 go-pugleaf

.. and it came to pass that John Underwood <john@jsunderwood.
demon.co.uk> uttered forth:
>
>Assuming that the question is put in a polite and positive way (or at
>least is seen to be an attempt at doing that), what do you do if the
>author then starts shouting about being criticised for his lack of
>education and who do you think you are to say you're better than me or
>....

Good point - people have tried to put ImArse off, but he's
persistent in his babblelogue...

>
>In fact, I can even remember a suggestion made that the only reason I
>"deliberately use" correct spelling and good grammar is to show that I
>am better than everyone else and I should make mistakes like everybody
>because it doesn't matter anyway.

That's an interesting suggestion. Perhaps I should consider
having a driving accident once every so often to prove that I'm not
the same as careful and considerate drivers. Also, wait until you
knock one of these people down in your car.... and then tell the
ambulance drivers that the victim is allergic to all painkillers.
Simple mistake... and it doesn't matter anyway!!

However, deliberately using correct spelling and grammar
certainly shows that you are better [ at communicating ] than
anyone [ who has difficulty deciding whether or not their
communication places demands upon the recipient ].

Keep up the deliberate correct spelling. It's a joy to read.
-- 
 
"Dungeon" Dave, in anti-harvest mode...

from: abuse@yahoo.com
from: abuse@btinternet.com
from: *@localhost

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, 'Dungeon' Dave wrote:

>However, deliberately using correct spelling and grammar
>certainly shows that you are better [ at communicating ] than
>anyone [ who has difficulty deciding whether or not their
>communication places demands upon the recipient ].

It also shows that he went to a school where they actually taught him
how to speak _English_, rather than how to stick a few misspelt words
together and call it a sentence. Grammar isn't taught in state schools
anymore. This is because most people don't really care about education.
-- 
Stuart Brady

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Colin Jones wrote:
>Hiya Stuart Brady.
>On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:13:48 +0000 you wrote:

>>It was poorly worded, so you can't blame people for misinterpreting it.
>>Maybe "For my home network, I only use TCP/IP" would have been better?

>Is it a requirement of everyone using these groups to have GCSE
>English now? 

That was not meant as a complaint -- I was saying that people cannot be
blamed for misinterpreting. I was also attempting to help Dave Mason.

This is a perfect example, actually -- I'm not flaming you.
-- 
Stuart Brady

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Colin Jones wrote:
>Hiya 'Dungeon' Dave.
>On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 21:18:02 +0000 you wrote:

>>No... but the ability to communicate without ambiguity or leaving
>>yourself open to misinterpretation is a pre-requisite of a kind.
>[Etc.]

>Back to my original point, while this is definitely a reason to take
>the p!$$ it hardly qualifies for the response it got ;o)

Hear, hear!

However, I think that you can't blame people for the misinterpretation.
I do agree that what was said was totally OTT, though. I misinterpreted
it -- but I didn't actually flame him!
-- 
Stuart Brady

In article <o8gAsaDbYEr4EwHe@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk>, John Underwood
<john@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk> writes

>If I cannot understand the question, or be reasonably certain that I
>have understood it, but think, from what I can understand, that I may be
>able to answer it if it is explained better, then I will ask for
>clarification. Usually, I think, I succeed in doing this in a fairly
>open, not too critical way (but since I am drawing attention to some
>kind of mistake, it is bound to contain some element of criticism). I am
>afraid I do not react well to an attack on the ground that I should be
>more understanding, that I am looking down on someone and so one when I
>am trying to help and have gone out of my way to show that by asking for
>help in understanding the problem.

I agree completely. If you want someone, out of the kindness of their
heart, to waste their time giving away free information (that they
probably worked hard to get) to save you time and effort then I find
that abject grovelling works quite well. It's about the only way in text
to show you **really do** appreciate the help, and it costs nothing.

People who bite the hand that would feed them deserve a slap round the
chops. The end of a boot is optional.

>In this case, the same inadequate question was asked repeatedly before
>anyone had a chance to look at it. I am sorry, but I do not go along
>with the explanation that it could be a newcomer. I would find that
>pretty offensive behaviour in almost any circumstance where someone were
>trying to enlist my voluntary help.

Agreed, see above. An intelligent person would spot the faux pas and
back off fast. See mason for a non-intelligent person.

>However, Os, as far as I can tell, nothing that I or anyone else has
>written in this thread applies or should be taken as applying to you,
>for whom I have the highest admiration and respect. 

Er, um, this is unfamiliar territory ...
[Have you been imbibing?]

>(Which doesn't mean
>I won't tell you if I think you are wrong about something :-) 

Phew! That's a relief!

>- unless I
>can't understand it in which case I'll ask you to explain it again).

You better had. I wouldn't want you answering the wrong question...

Now, about OS2 and the LS120 ......  :-)

-- 
Oz

On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 at 20:39:45, Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in
demon.tech.pc:
(Reference: <PET2MHARyFr4EwRz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>)

>Now, about OS2 and the LS120 ......  :-)

You are extremely unlikely to get an answer from me at all on the former
and more likely to get questions on the latter.
-- 
John Underwood

On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 at 20:39:45, Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in
demon.tech.pc:
(Reference: <PET2MHARyFr4EwRz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>)

>People who bite the hand that would feed them deserve a slap round the chops. 
>The end of a boot is optional. 

Or if you are feeling really vicious, let them swallow your hand and
then push their tongue where the sun doesn't shine - from the inside
out.

(Purely figuratively, of course).
-- 
John Underwood

On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 at 20:14:17, Stuart Brady <stuart@bradymill-no.spam-
demon.co.uk> wrote in demon.tech.pc:
(Reference: <bm6g0QAZaFr4IwIz@bradymill.demon.co.uk>)

>On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, 'Dungeon' Dave wrote:
>
>>However, deliberately using correct spelling and grammar
>>certainly shows that you are better [ at communicating ] than
>>anyone [ who has difficulty deciding whether or not their
>>communication places demands upon the recipient ].
>
>It also shows that he went to a school where they actually taught him
>how to speak _English_, rather than how to stick a few misspelt words
>together and call it a sentence. Grammar isn't taught in state schools
>anymore. This is because most people don't really care about education.

Actually, when I went to school, grammar was taught quite well in most
schools. However, I was privileged to go to a public school (direct
grant) at the state's expense. That privilege is no longer possible due
to the egalitarian wisdom of our masters.

Funny that, one of the members of the cabinet was in the same year as
me. (I have a feeling his parents paid fees and that is still possible).
-- 
John Underwood

On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 at 19:51:17, Stuart Brady <stuart@bradymill-no.spam-
demon.co.uk> wrote in demon.tech.pc:
(Reference: <DmxmEKA1EFr4IwL4@bradymill.demon.co.uk>)

>So... if you don't need to share files across the Internet, you should not bind 
>file sharing to the Internet *AND* you should use a firewall. Although you 
>probably only _need_ to do one of these, there's no reason _not_ to do both, is 
>there? 

No, of course not.

This has run further than it ought. Let me explain. Regardless of what
you meant, when I read your comment first, I thought you were saying
that no-one should share across the Internet (or should do something
which would prevent that).

I thought that was probably not what you intended, but since it clearly
could be interpreted to mean that, then I felt it needed to be stated
that that was not true. That is all - not an attempt to flame or even to
inflame, just seeking to avoid misunderstanding - and the consequences
of trying to sort out someone else who got in a mess as a result.
-- 
John Underwood

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 at 21:32:45, 'Dungeon' Dave <Dungeon@SpamNot.Here>
wrote in demon.tech.pc:
(Reference: <Qp3fNvA9dxq4Ew59@ghastly.demon.co.uk>)

>However, deliberately using correct spelling and grammar certainly shows that 
>you are better [ at communicating ] than anyone [ who has difficulty deciding 
>whether or not their communication places demands upon the recipient ]. 
>
My favourite was: "Just because you've been to University, you think
you're better educated than me".

-- 
John Underwood

In article <Qp3fNvA9dxq4Ew59@ghastly.demon.co.uk>, 'Dungeon' Dave
<Dungeon@SpamNot.Here> writes

>However, deliberately using correct spelling and grammar
>certainly shows that you are better [ at communicating ] 

Perhaps. I am dyslexic so any writing is tricky.

I have not found spelling mistakes a problem in communicating and
frankly it's only the odd person with nothing better to say who comments
on other's spelling. This doesn't progress the thread in any useful way,
either.

It's quite interesting that those that do comment almost never actually
give the correct spelling, which would actually be helpful.

>than
>anyone [ who has difficulty deciding whether or not their
>communication places demands upon the recipient ].
>
>Keep up the deliberate correct spelling. It's a joy to read.

I keep trying ....

-- 
Oz

On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 at 08:40:58, Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in
demon.tech.pc:
(Reference: <pKwf$XAaQ7q4Ew8O@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>)

>In article <Qp3fNvA9dxq4Ew59@ghastly.demon.co.uk>, 'Dungeon' Dave
><Dungeon@SpamNot.Here> writes
>
>>However, deliberately using correct spelling and grammar
>>certainly shows that you are better [ at communicating ] 
>
>Perhaps. I am dyslexic so any writing is tricky.
>
>I have not found spelling mistakes a problem in communicating and
>frankly it's only the odd person with nothing better to say who comments
>on other's spelling. This doesn't progress the thread in any useful way,
>either.
>
>It's quite interesting that those that do comment almost never actually
>give the correct spelling, which would actually be helpful.
>
>>than
>>anyone [ who has difficulty deciding whether or not their
>>communication places demands upon the recipient ].
>>
>>Keep up the deliberate correct spelling. It's a joy to read.
>
>I keep trying ....
>
Oz, you always impress me with your ability to express yourself so well
in writing and I congratulate you.

I am not talking about bad spelling per se, which I accept from others
(but not myself) provided the mistake does not prevent the meaning
coming through. I say the same of bad grammar, though here the problem
is that the nature of the mistake will often create an element of
ambiguity.

I am not concerned as to why the expression is poor - it could be
drunkenness, illiteracy due to playing truant throughout an entire
school time, dyslexia or writing in a second language. (I only lump
these together because I do not wish to make a judgement of those who
might by some be considered to be blameworthy for their errors).

If I cannot understand the question, or be reasonably certain that I
have understood it, but think, from what I can understand, that I may be
able to answer it if it is explained better, then I will ask for
clarification. Usually, I think, I succeed in doing this in a fairly
open, not too critical way (but since I am drawing attention to some
kind of mistake, it is bound to contain some element of criticism). I am
afraid I do not react well to an attack on the ground that I should be
more understanding, that I am looking down on someone and so one when I
am trying to help and have gone out of my way to show that by asking for
help in understanding the problem.

In this case, the same inadequate question was asked repeatedly before
anyone had a chance to look at it. I am sorry, but I do not go along
with the explanation that it could be a newcomer. I would find that
pretty offensive behaviour in almost any circumstance where someone were
trying to enlist my voluntary help.

However, Os, as far as I can tell, nothing that I or anyone else has
written in this thread applies or should be taken as applying to you,
for whom I have the highest admiration and respect. (Which doesn't mean
I won't tell you if I think you are wrong about something :-) - unless I
can't understand it in which case I'll ask you to explain it again).
-- 
John Underwood

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Underwood wrote:

>I am sorry. When you said you shouldn't bind sharing to the dial-up
>adapter, I assumed you were saying you shouldn't share across the
>Internet. Forgive me for misunderstanding you.

No... I was saying that if you've got a firewall and you _don't_ need to
share files across the Internet, there's still no reason to bind file
sharing to the Internet.

I thought that the "unless you _need_ to bind it to the adapter" bit was
too obvious to be worth saying: "If you need to share files across the
Internet, don't bind file sharing to the Internet" sounds a bit silly...
Obviously I was wrong... *grin*

So... if you don't need to share files across the Internet, you should
not bind file sharing to the Internet *AND* you should use a firewall.
Although you probably only _need_ to do one of these, there's no reason
_not_ to do both, is there?
-- 
Stuart Brady

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, Bob Goddard wrote:

>The computer is an idiot,
>It knows not how nor when.
>In fact the only thing it knows
>Is one plus one makes ten.

Sounds like you've been doing too much work with binary, I think. Or
maybe you've just been using Intel's latest Itanium prototypes...
-- 
Stuart Brady

On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, John Underwood wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 at 20:14:17, Stuart Brady <stuart@bradymill-no.spam-
>demon.co.uk> wrote in demon.tech.pc:
>(Reference: <bm6g0QAZaFr4IwIz@bradymill.demon.co.uk>)

>>It also shows that he went to a school where they actually taught him
>>how to speak _English_, rather than how to stick a few misspelt words
>>together and call it a sentence. Grammar isn't taught in state schools
>>anymore. This is because most people don't really care about education.

>Actually, when I went to school, grammar was taught quite well in most
>schools.

[snip]

A school where they taught "how to stick a few misspelt words together
and call it a sentence" meant the primary and secondary schools that _I_
went to -- today's schools -- where teachers think that apples cannot be
green, grandpa is wrong -- you should say granddad, "second" does not
spell "2nd"... you get the point. I even did work experience in a
primary school. I was quite shocked, actually.
-- 
Stuart Brady

In article <rgY$1BA+XRr4Ew3r@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
<Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <gesn9DAGYQr4EwEc@bhfarm.demon.co.uk>, Alan J Webb
><alan@bhfarm.demon.co.uk> writes


>>My wife is dyslexic but she
>>can write letters etc very quickly, accurately and in a much more
>>'chatty' way than I could ever do. However she reads *very* slowly and
>>has to re-read frequently to take it in. 
>
>Common. My daughter had precisely this problem (as well as the spelling
>one). However it can be overcome by many with a lot of hard work. 

My wife's spelling is OK but occasionally she seems to have a mental
block over a quite simple word. 

[....]
>>I OTOH read very quickly but
>>take absolute ages to write a 'friendly' letter, possibly due to my love
>>of factual publications and total disregard for fictional literature.
>
>Huh. I bet you read catalogues and instruction manuals for fun too. 
>Join the club. Sad, really.

Yup.

 I have the full course notes for a Dart turbo-prop engine from the
Rolls Royce aero-engine school. Absolutely excellent reading. Lots of
flow diagrams, schematics and cutaway's too.

-- 
Best regards,

Alan J Webb.  Sad Bastard.

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 at 07:56:15, Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in
demon.tech.pc:
(Reference: <VuwQ2XAfsPr4Ewxg@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>)

>Mind you in my day you got heavily marked down for spelling wrongly in 'O' 
>levels but these days (luckily for my kids who have both inherited it) they can 
>get awai wiv bloo merda. 

This seems to be a constant complaint. My German teacher was saying that
they have the same thing - and there are some aspects of German grammar
where an understanding of the background is even more necessary than it
is in English. It always amazes me that in an age when, for the first
time in history, the majority of people are starting to communicate with
large numbers of people in writing [1] the ability to do so clearly and
unambiguously is treated with such disregard.

I am not looking for pedantry, but what wood yew understand me to have
been talking about in this sentence? If you think about it, it is clear
that wood and yew are misspellings, but that isn't obvious at first
sight and my error has wasted your time while you checked it. That is
not a good idea if I want you to read and understand what I am trying to
say.

Oz, you show all the signs of somebody who has to work hard to achieve
any writing at all. As a result, you write far clearly and unambiguously
than almost everyone else I read on usenet. I suspect you read through
everything you have written several times before you post as well. Most
people (including me) seem to send much of their stuff off without a
second glance. This may add an element of spontaneity, but I find the
results, when they come back to me, acutely embarrassing when I have
written them and sometimes profoundly confusing when they come from
others.

(I have just read through that last paragraph and corrected three
mistakes - now for the ones I didn't find that time - this time one
sentence which said what I meant but was grammatical nonsense. Perhaps
someone will tell me about the mistakes I failed to see altogether.)

[1] Before the Internet, how many things written anywhere but a book or
a newspaper were ready by more than three or four people?
-- 
John Underwood

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 at 21:36:27, Stuart Brady <stuart@bradymill-no.spam-
demon.co.uk> wrote in demon.tech.pc:
(Reference: <gKG$8fAbtbr4IwMh@bradymill.demon.co.uk>)

>Fair enough. I just didn't see how anyone could misinterpret it, really, so I 
>thought that you were correcting me for the sake of it. 

I have far too many examples of stuff I have written which I was quite
certain could never be misunderstood and then the reams of follow up
material explaining what I didn't mean by it.

Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to see how somebody else could
possibly see any other meaning in something than what I thought when I
wrote it. That is why proof-reading and editing are so important. Here
it is done by peer review. Unfortunately, the reviewer's comment isn't
always as well expressed as it might have been :-(


I spent most of yesterday afternoon in a witness box and most of the
evening discussing with another witness in the case what we both should
have said.
-- 
John Underwood

On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 14:16:09 +0000, John Underwood
<john@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:


>Oz, you show all the signs of somebody who has to work hard to achieve
>any writing at all. As a result, you write far clearly and unambiguously
>than almost everyone else I read on usenet. I suspect you read through
>everything you have written several times before you post as well. Most
>people (including me) seem to send much of their stuff off without a
>second glance. This may add an element of spontaneity, but I find the
>results, when they come back to me, acutely embarrassing when I have
>written them and sometimes profoundly confusing when they come from
>others.

"you write far clearly and unambiguously"? In this context, it's not
an important slip but in a more technical topic a similar slip could
be disastrous to your meaning.

BTW, I don't think Oz shows signs of having to work hard to write.
He's told us he does but I would have never have suspected it
otherwise.

Yeah, OK. I suppose I'm being a bit of a clever dick but you did ask!

--
Vic Ayres

In article <Jz84vlFpWqr4EwjI@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk>, John Underwood
<john@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk> writes

>It always amazes me that in an age when, for the first
>time in history, the majority of people are starting to communicate with
>large numbers of people in writing [1] the ability to do so clearly and
>unambiguously is treated with such disregard.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. One reason for the widespread use of
english is that it can be understood despite many errors of
pronunciation, spelling, grammar and (to a lesser extent) parsing. In
other places it's not uncommon for non-english speakers to post with
barely a word properly spelt and with inappropriate nouns and verbs and
don't even talk about tenses. Generally they are replied to without a
comment, perhaps occasionally a query about the use of a technical term.

The same applies to spoken english. Take broad scots (the man with the
net vest whose name just escapes me right now), after the first 10
minutes you can follow and after two episodes you have picked up most of
the jargon. The same applies to singapore english and so on. Talk to a
german or french speaker in their language and you just get a blank look
unless you are VERY close to correct.

>I am not looking for pedantry, but what wood yew understand me to have
>been talking about in this sentence? If you think about it, it is clear
>that wood and yew are misspellings, but that isn't obvious at first
>sight and my error has wasted your time while you checked it. That is
>not a good idea if I want you to read and understand what I am trying to
>say.

Now that IS also correct. If you want to appear competent and
intelligent then you gotta spell and phrase correctly. This was a
constant battle for me when writing business letters and so on. Luckily
I have a very un-dyslexic wife who tore my efforts up for me (mostly)
before I had sent them. I do wonder how many very competant people never
get the job they deserve because they just don't write properly,
although with modern spellcheckers this is very much less of a problem.

>Oz, you show all the signs of somebody who has to work hard to achieve
>any writing at all. As a result, you write far clearly and unambiguously
>than almost everyone else I read on usenet. I suspect you read through
>everything you have written several times before you post as well. 

You wouldn't want to see my first draft, trust me.
*I* don't want to see my first draft!

>Most
>people (including me) seem to send much of their stuff off without a
>second glance. 

One of the problems with being good at something.

>This may add an element of spontaneity, but I find the
>results, when they come back to me, acutely embarrassing when I have
>written them 

Yeah right, tell me about it!

>and sometimes profoundly confusing when they come from
>others.

It's the use of the comma. This is not explained at school at all well
(if at all). I have found that the comma is the vital thing for avoiding
ambiguity. If you re-read what you have written and follow your own
punctuation (which is bloody hard) then you will spot where you have
said something ambiguous. Appropriate use of commas fixes this with
ease.

>(I have just read through that last paragraph and corrected three
>mistakes - now for the ones I didn't find that time - this time one
>sentence which said what I meant but was grammatical nonsense. Perhaps
>someone will tell me about the mistakes I failed to see altogether.)

Oh dear. You'll be doing it all the time now.  :-)

I do wish TP3 (W31) had a spellchecker, I ought to switch to agent but
then I'd get careless again.

-- 
Oz

In article <rgY$1BA+XRr4Ew3r@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
<Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>
[snip]
>
>Huh. I bet you read catalogues and instruction manuals for fun too. 
>Join the club. Sad, really.
>
Oh dear. Goes away muttering "I'm *not* sad, I'm *not* sad...........

-- 
Graham D. Sturrock

In article <Vzy6WQA8pdr4Eww5@bhfarm.demon.co.uk>, Alan J Webb
<alan@bhfarm.demon.co.uk> writes
>
[snip]
>
> I have the full course notes for a Dart turbo-prop engine from the
>Rolls Royce aero-engine school. Absolutely excellent reading. Lots of
>flow diagrams, schematics and cutaway's too.
>
Wow! Cool! I could lend you the General Familiarisation Manual for the
Boeing 777 if you like!

-- 
Graham D. Sturrock

In article <950963097.11003.0.nnrp-11.c1edec42@news.demon.co.uk>, Paul
Sansom <paul@formline.demon.co.uk> writes

>I saw a recent report whereby reading speeds could be dramatically improved
>by putting a clear sheet of coloured acetate over the page - I think the
>implication was that black-on-white is hard for some people to decipher.
>Possibly coloured glasses might have the same effect?

That is correct, it seems to work by improving scanning.
The effect on my children was an improvement of about 10% but the damn
things soon get mislaid.

Hmm. I wonder if that's why I prefer my text black on grey and cannot
read black on white well at all. Hmmm .....

-- 
Oz

In article <WsOwWIAlotr4EwQs@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
<Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>I do wish TP3 (W31) had a spellchecker, I ought to switch to agent but
>then I'd get careless again.
>
Yse, modun vershuns of Trunpike hav a spellchequer.

regrads,
-- 
Tony 
Ooh, Gromit - it's Real Wensleydale!   [Wallace]

In article <vprtkOAvtGs4Ew+W@millington.demon.co.uk>, Tony Millington
<tony@millington.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <WsOwWIAlotr4EwQs@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
><Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>I do wish TP3 (W31) had a spellchecker, I ought to switch to agent but
>>then I'd get careless again.
>>
>Yse, modun vershuns of Trunpike hav a spellchequer.

unfortuneateley modun vershuns run unda w9X, I dunt ewes w9X.
this meens I hav too yoos the erlia vershun of trunpyke witch dunt hav a
spelchekka.

lukili mi speling is kwite gud aniwai so i dowt aniwun notises.
its a gud thin nglish is sutch a fonetic langwage, dunt yoo fink?
not lyk jerman or french whitch hav silli speling rools.

i wunda if thai hav spelchekkas in lynux? perhaps i shud moov ova to
lynux and joyn the twentieth centri. oops sorri, twentifurst sentry.

-- 
Oz

On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 at 23:09:38, Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in
demon.tech.pc:
(Reference: <s2sewAAyQHs4EwPd@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>)

>i wunda if thai hav spelchekkas in lynux? perhaps i shud moov ova to lynux and 
>joyn the twentieth centri. oops sorri, twentifurst sentry. 

Try a search of the Internet for a conjunction of spell and 3.1. There
is at least one shareware product which runs under Win3.1 and can be
called to check Turnpike 3.* It is so long since I used it that I don't
think I have the files any longer, but if I find them, I'll send them to
you.
-- 
John Underwood

In article <5A5EzoAg1Is4Ewem@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk>, John Underwood
<john@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk> writes

>Try a search of the Internet for a conjunction of spell and 3.1. There
>is at least one shareware product which runs under Win3.1 and can be
>called to check Turnpike 3.* It is so long since I used it that I don't
>think I have the files any longer, but if I find them, I'll send them to
>you.

Yeah, the Quinion one?

Had it and it worked (although tedious to use).  A few years ago I had a
tidy up and inadvertantly deleted it, upon reinstall if ceased to work.
Now, of course, I'm quite proud that I don't need it to avoid looking
like a moron. [I hope, anyway].

Oz: still all at sea with ents and ants though.

-- 
Oz

In article <3SdYp8ArEzr4Ew37@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
<Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes

[discussing dyslexia]
>I hadn't noticed. I'm motre a content guy though.
>I like what you say, it makes me feel normal.

Oz, normal?!!!    :-)

My English was apparently not that good when I was at school. I was in
the third set down whilst in top sets for maths, physics, chem etc.
However when it comes to writing business letters or doing crosswords I
am the one who gets consulted, despite my mother and sister being good
at English. Strange really.

-- 
Best regards,

Alan J Webb.

A question about dyslexia: English spelling is very irregular (cough 
enough plough through thorough though hiccough), in the sense that 
there's no one-to-one relationship between spellings and sounds.
Many other languages are far more regular (maybe the combination of 
letters mapped to a sound doesn't make sense phonetically, but it is 
consistent). I think Spanish, Italian, French, and German are all 
pretty regular (though exactly which languages are regular isn't what 
I'm discussing).

Do people have similar problems with dyslexia in these languages?
If so, how do the statistics compare with English?

Or does regularity of spelling have nothing to do with dyslexia?

Best wishes,
-- 
Michael Salem

.. and it came to pass that Alan J Webb <alan@bhfarm.demon.co.
uk> uttered forth:
>
>Oz, normal?!!!    :-)

As normal as a... er... hmmm... see what you mean now...
>
>My English was apparently not that good when I was at school. I was in
>the third set down whilst in top sets for maths, physics, chem etc.
>However when it comes to writing business letters or doing crosswords I
>am the one who gets consulted, despite my mother and sister being 
>good
>at English. Strange really.
>
Ditto - was consistently top of year for maths, but in 3rd set for
English. Failed EngLang at school, failed in the next summer
resits, failed in the following november resits but passed (finally)
at the same time I took my A levels. However, my communication
never really developed until I was getting into the last year of Uni
(when I had to write reports on coding that I'd done) and then I had
to re-think my vocab when I went into teaching the following year.

Talk about buggering around with me comms skills.

Now, I'm working for a computer training firm whereby the quality
of communication in company e-mails is frightening. What is
appalling is that some of the higher echelons claim dyslexia for
their poor mails.... when I see how careful some genuine
dyslexics are at forming coherent written passages (Oz - you're
one of them, along with several schoolkids I taught) to the point
that they're actively searching out their mistakes, I can only
conclude that the powers that be are pathetically lazy and
inconsiderate enough not to think of the demands placed on the
reader of the mails. This doesn't endear them to the rest of the
workers at all, but the execs still haven't grasped the point.
-- 
 
"Dungeon" Dave, in anti-harvest mode...

from: abuse@yahoo.com
from: abuse@btinternet.com
from: *@localhost

In article <20000222.1755.10518snz@michaels.demon.co.uk>, Michael Salem
<4ms2u$ms@michaels.demon.co.uk> writes

>Or does regularity of spelling have nothing to do with dyslexia?

I can't speak for all dyslexias. However in my family the regularity of
spelling is the major obstacle, I would say. It is perhaps unfortunate
that irregularly spelt words are by definition common and are come
across at a relatively early age. Long and complex words tend to be much
more phonetic and thus offer much less of a problem.

It's also quite interesting that my kids and I (or is it me?) were
relatively low down the class until aged about 13 whereupon we all
steadily rose. These common irregulars were learned  before 13 (in
theory) so some sort of late interlectual development may be something
to do with it. Having said that even at my advanced years it is a
constant battle to spell correctly and my daughter's IQ measured at age
10 was very high despite her relatively (at that time) low position in
the class. It's definitely very odd.

Judging from several of the posts here this is not atypical even where
(as in my case) dyslexia wasn't even invented, let alone tested for.
What's more spelling was marked heavily, with a lot of marks attached to
it, when I did 'O' levels whilst today it's often only 2%-4% of the
marks, even in english so it's less of a liability than it was.

-- 
Oz

On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Oz wrote:

>It's also quite interesting that my kids and I (or is it me?) were
>relatively low down the class until aged about 13 whereupon we all
>steadily rose. These common irregulars were learned  before 13 (in
>theory) so some sort of late interlectual development may be something
>to do with it. Having said that even at my advanced years it is a
>constant battle to spell correctly and my daughter's IQ measured at age
>10 was very high despite her relatively (at that time) low position in
>the class. It's definitely very odd.

This has got me thinking... Is dyslexia something you've just got or you
haven't got, or are there shades in between? Does it have to affect your
spelling -- or can it just affect numeracy, for example?

BTW, I was fairly low down in terms of spelling and numeracy, when I was
at primary school. I was doing 2nd/3rd year work in the 5th year. I
understood the work, but I didn't do much because it was so boring. Then
they moved me up to 5th year work, and I missed all of the stuff in
between. I'm doing A-Level Maths now, but I still don't know my tables.
-- 
Stuart Brady

In article <bg8AVBAZeDt4IwY8@bradymill.demon.co.uk>, Stuart Brady
<stuart@bradymill-no.spam-demon.co.uk> writes

>This has got me thinking... Is dyslexia something you've just got or you
>haven't got, or are there shades in between? 

That's a bit too technical for me to answer. I **think** the definition
is when you are more than 2 standard deviations in achievement below
expected on your averaged IQ. In other words a smart person could be
certified dyslexic for (say) reading even though the reading achievement
was slightly above average but an averagely smart person would have to
be truly terrible to get the required differential. Having said that my
daugther's remedial teacher (brilliant, a 73 yr old with a brain like an
28 yr old) had almost all her students with *below* average intelligence
and the dyslexia on top of that. Her idea with many of them was to get
them to be able to read a sun headline (and I'm almost not joking) aged
18. It's really very sad for these people indeed, be thankful.

>Does it have to affect your
>spelling -- or can it just affect numeracy, for example?

Oh numeracy is more common than spelling and reading I understand.
Remember the IQ tests used are very wide ranging indeed and many are
visual or aural to circumvent the medium affecting the measurement.

>BTW, I was fairly low down in terms of spelling and numeracy, when I was
>at primary school. I was doing 2nd/3rd year work in the 5th year. I
>understood the work, but I didn't do much because it was so boring. Then
>they moved me up to 5th year work, and I missed all of the stuff in
>between. I'm doing A-Level Maths now, but I still don't know my tables.

Sounds about right. See if you can get a test.

-- 
Oz

.. and it came to pass that Stuart Brady <stuart@bradymill-
no.spam-demon.co.uk> uttered forth:
>This has got me thinking... Is dyslexia something you've just got or you
>haven't got, or are there shades in between? 

There are "grades" or "severity" levels of dyslexia, from simple
word blindness all the way up to seeing letters instead of the
words. Imagine reading German - you can make out some of the
words and are able to write them similarly, but then imagine
Chinese or Egyptian hieroglyphics - these will have to be copied
character by character for those who can't read the language, and
it's pretty easy to drop a character here or there.

>Does it have to affect your
>spelling -- or can it just affect numeracy, for example?

Numerical dyslexia is called "dyspraxia" but this tends to be less
common. Letters tend to lack the natural progression in numbers
and figures, so a fairly nimble mind is able to fill in the gaps for
missing values. It is also realised that parts of mathematics
concern the search for the missing term, so abilities in this area
can overcome initial gaps from the outset.
>
>BTW, I was fairly low down in terms of spelling and numeracy, when I 
>was
>at primary school. I was doing 2nd/3rd year work in the 5th year. I
>understood the work, but I didn't do much because it was so boring. Then
>they moved me up to 5th year work, and I missed all of the stuff in
>between. I'm doing A-Level Maths now, but I still don't know my tables.

You'll be surprised at how useful they are. I drilled my schoolkids
with tables, and they were able to estimate quantities and validate
answers at a glance with some basic knowledge of number
patterns.
-- 
 
"Dungeon" Dave, in anti-harvest mode...

from: abuse@yahoo.com
from: abuse@btinternet.com
from: *@localhost

In article <ZsrNMAASfEt4EwQK@ghastly.demon.co.uk>, 'Dungeon' Dave
<Dungeon@SpamNot.Here> writes
[]
>Numerical dyslexia is called "dyspraxia" but this tends to be less
                               ^^^^^^^^^ *not so*, there is a word for
it, which others may know off hand.  Dyspraxia is something else again,
and then some.

>common. Letters tend to lack the natural progression in numbers
>and figures, so a fairly nimble mind is able to fill in the gaps for
>missing values. It is also realised that parts of mathematics
>concern the search for the missing term, so abilities in this area
>can overcome initial gaps from the outset.
[]

I've been following this thread with considerable interest because one
of my sons has dyspraxia.

Dyspraxia: An impairment or immaturity of the organisation of movement.
Associated with this there may be problems of language, perception, and
thought.

Dyspaxia: Poor praxis or motor planning.  A less severe, but more common
dysfunction than apraxia (the lack of praxis), it is often related to
poor somatosensory processing.

I believe 'praxis' comes from the Greek for movement... John?

Basically his fine motor skills are shot, and he has always been
described as 'clumsy'.

He can read fine, but slowly.  He can write fine, but very slowly, and
it is definitely a 'drunken spider' effect.  His maths skills, and
lateral thinking skills are fine, although putting 'sums' on paper is a
problem.  When allowed to say, prove Pythagoras's (sp?) from first
principles *verbally*, no problemo.

So his teachers despair of his organisational skills, homework etc.
However he is drifting to the top sets in all subjects that don't rely
on just the written word.  Strangely, foreign languages are also a 'hit'
with him, and I suspect it because there is emphasis on the *spoken*
word. 

It's known in the States as 'Clumsy child syndrome'.

I could give tons more on this, but we were looking at dyslexia...

BTW, I would like to observe that a very large proportion of the folk
who work as engineers in the broadcast TV industry (my bag) are by their
own admission dyslexic, and got into the business because you only had
to understand, and *do*, not prove yourself on paper.  Me, I'm not
dyslexic AFAIK, but I got into it because I got so bored with writing -
I would have an answer to a question ready in my head in 10 secs, and it
took 10 mins to write down, by which time I was bored and wanting to get
onto something else.

Just my 2p.
-- 
Jim Crowther
Mailto:jim@crowfam.demon.co.uk
Public PGP keys at ldap://certserver.pgp.com (and others)
Key ID 0xE0BCE5F1 (DH/DSS 2048/1024), 0x8A673777 (RSA 1024)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:45:28 +0000, Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <20000222.1755.10518snz@michaels.demon.co.uk>, Michael Salem
><4ms2u$ms@michaels.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>Or does regularity of spelling have nothing to do with dyslexia?

>Judging from several of the posts here this is not atypical even where
>(as in my case) dyslexia wasn't even invented, 

Curious, how did this thread get into win95 :-)))

I have a close relative who is dyslexic, she really struggled at
school until she started communicating on the internet and then she
progressed well - still a struggle though.

Funny, in the old days if you had a problem with spelling you were
'lazy', now dyslexia is well publicised lazy people claim a 'touch of
dyslexia'.  What's a touch of dyslexia anyway ?

Geoff Lane

On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 at 22:21:06, Jim Crowther
<replies@crowfam.demon.co.uk> wrote in demon.tech.pc:
(Reference: <kPqSyMAS7at4Ew1P@crowfam.demon.co.uk>)

>I believe 'praxis' comes from the Greek for movement... John? 

More "action", as in the Latin - English word "practice". (Contrast
orthodoxy - right teaching or thinking - with orthopraxis - right
doing).
-- 
John Underwood

On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Oz wrote:
>Stuart Brady <stuart@bradymill-no.spam-demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>BTW, I was fairly low down in terms of spelling and numeracy, when I was
>>at primary school. I was doing 2nd/3rd year work in the 5th year. I
>>understood the work, but I didn't do much because it was so boring. Then
>>they moved me up to 5th year work, and I missed all of the stuff in
>>between. I'm doing A-Level Maths now, but I still don't know my tables.

>Sounds about right. See if you can get a test.

I had a lot of help on reading and spelling, but think that I'm still
slow. I have difficulty with exam papers which use arial/helvetica,
because it just dazzles me -- I need to concentrate on one word at a
time, and it still doesn't make sense unless I read it several times.

I might think about getting a test. I'm sure that there's anything
wrong, though... If there is, it's very slight.
-- 
Stuart Brady

In article <5HS48CAi8Ut4IwvX@bradymill.demon.co.uk>, Stuart Brady
<stuart@bradymill-no.spam-demon.co.uk> writes

>I had a lot of help on reading and spelling, but think that I'm still
>slow. I have difficulty with exam papers which use arial/helvetica,
>because it just dazzles me -- I need to concentrate on one word at a
>time, and it still doesn't make sense unless I read it several times.

How would 50% more time in exams help?
How often do you miss complete questions?

>I might think about getting a test. I'm sure that there's anything
>wrong, though... If there is, it's very slight.

Doesn't sound slight to me. 
To even notice it means it's probably severe.

-- 
Oz

On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 at 15:32:50, Stuart Brady <stuart@bradymill-no.spam-
demon.co.uk> wrote in demon.tech.pc:
(Reference: <5HS48CAi8Ut4IwvX@bradymill.demon.co.uk>)

>I had a lot of help on reading and spelling, but think that I'm still slow. I 
>have difficulty with exam papers which use arial/helvetica, because it just 
>dazzles me -- I need to concentrate on one word at a time, and it still doesn't 
>make sense unless I read it several times. 
>
>I might think about getting a test. I'm sure that there's anything wrong, 
>though... If there is, it's very slight. 

It doesn't sound a minor problem to me. If you have difficulty reading
sans serif fonts which are perfectly clear to the majority then there is
a serious problem. If you have difficulty with exams because of it, then
this is something to bring up with the examiners and ask for a different
font to be used - or a special paper to be printed for you. They will
probably need a bit of supporting evidence, but if I had been involved
in your education, I would be putting on pressure onto you and
educational psychologists for an assessment in any case, much more
generally than just the exams.
-- 
John Underwood

On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Oz wrote:

>How would 50% more time in exams help?

I honestly don't know. Taking the question in, and writing the answer
down are the harder parts. My handwriting is slow anyway, but if I'm
writing neatly, it's even slower. Using joined up letters is just not
practical because of the speed, and also the ink spider syndrome.

>How often do you miss complete questions?

Not very often, although I do miss a few questions (or pages) every now
and then... Not in exams, though, because I always double check. I miss
the odd word, but I think that everyone does that. 
-- 
Stuart Brady

In article <IEqICwBqSst4Eww8@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk>, John Underwood
<john@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk> writes

>Except that Douglas left us with the unanswered question of whether it
>was the question or the answer that they go wrong.

Not at all. They asked the "answer to the ultimate question question of
life, the universe and everything", and got the correct answer of 42 (as
everyone knows).

Unfortunately they needed 'the great computer that comes after me' to
work out what the ultimate question that gave the answer of 42 actually
was. As one says, "a slight oversight".

-- 
Oz

In article <NkwJq+BAUst4Ewy9@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk>, John Underwood
<john@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 at 07:15:39, Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>demon.tech.pc:
>(Reference: <ODHGNKAbwit4EwRN@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>)
>
>>Rather like a touch pregnant I should think.
>
>But some people cope with that better than others as well (as some cope
>with dyslexia compared with others).

I can't say it's a problem (or not) that I have had, personally.

-- 
Oz

In article <kPqSyMAS7at4Ew1P@crowfam.demon.co.uk>, Jim Crowther
<replies@crowfam.demon.co.uk> writes

>BTW, I would like to observe that a very large proportion of the folk
>who work as engineers in the broadcast TV industry (my bag) are by their
>own admission dyslexic, and got into the business because you only had
>to understand, and *do*, not prove yourself on paper. 

Judging from friends comments a large number of people in all
engineering and science are dyslexic. This may be due to it being the
only (except fine art) openings for high IQ dyslexics. The odd thing is
that many have very good spacial awareness in that they can 'see' a
finished 3-D structure (and 'walk' through it) from 2D plans. My wife
(highly non-dyslexic) more-or-less can't do this. My kids could 'spin'
3D structures in their heads at age about 7, automatically keeping tabs
on faces and so on. This is my only hint that a slightly different hard-
wiring of the brain may be the cause, and may be an exchange rather than
a liability.

Strangely most high power mathematicians I have come across are NOT
dyslexic but physiscists often are.

Please also to note that many of the disbilities (like many
disabilities) can be minimised by training and hard work. One key is to
**realise** that you have a problem and appreciate why you have to work
harder than others do (and always will).

-- 
Oz

In article <38b4f4ff.657901@news.freeuk.net>, Geoff Lane
<geoff@3lanes.freeserve.co.uk> writes

>Curious, how did this thread get into win95 :-)))

Spawned off another thread x-posted to dtpc.
There are some strange people in dtpc I'm told.

>Funny, in the old days if you had a problem with spelling you were
>'lazy', 

Correct. If they were near the top in science/math but waaaay down in
english/french the clearly they were not trying at english/french and
should be beaten (with a cane).

>now dyslexia is well publicised lazy people claim a 'touch of
>dyslexia'.  What's a touch of dyslexia anyway ?

Rather like a touch pregnant I should think.

-- 
Oz

On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:40:09 +0000, Stuart Brady
<stuart@bradymill-no.spam-demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Oz wrote:

>This has got me thinking... Is dyslexia something you've just got or you
>haven't got, or are there shades in between? Does it have to affect your
>spelling -- or can it just affect numeracy, for example?

As with all things there are varying levels.

Dyslexics can suffer many differing problems as well as reading and
maths.

Tying shoelaces or ties can be a problem, remembering directions or
instructions can also be difficult, steering a car can  be eratic with
overcorrections common.

I believe it is associated with 'short term' memory problems rather
than the long term, this explains the difficulty with maths as who
works out what 7x8 is ...  if you know your tables you know it is 56.

Dysexics have difficulty recognising words by the spelling, as they
learn to cope they recognise the 'shape' of words which gives the
impression of being able to read but when they encounter a new word
they are often not able to sound it out correctly.

Fortunately with modern technology dyslexia can be coped with more
easily.

Geoff Lane
Welwyn Hatfield Computer Club - Hertfordshire, UK
www.bigfoot.com/~whcc  - Online facilities for non locals

.. and it came to pass that Jim Crowther <replies@crowfam.demo
n.co.uk> uttered forth:
>In article <ZsrNMAASfEt4EwQK@ghastly.demon.co.uk>, 'Dungeon' Dave
><Dungeon@SpamNot.Here> writes
>[]
>>Numerical dyslexia is called "dyspraxia" but this tends to be less
>                               ^^^^^^^^^ *not so*, there is a word for
>it, which others may know off hand.  Dyspraxia is something else again,
>and then some.

Apologies - I thought it was called that, as someone was referred
to being dyspraxic whenthey had number blindness. I don't recall
them having impaired motor skills... perhaps I was told wrong.
Wonder what it is (term for numerical dyslexia) then?
>
<snip>

>BTW, I would like to observe that a very large proportion of the folk
>who work as engineers in the broadcast TV industry (my bag) are by their
>own admission dyslexic, and got into the business because you only had
>to understand, and *do*, not prove yourself on paper.  Me, I'm not
>dyslexic AFAIK, but I got into it because I got so bored with writing -
>I would have an answer to a question ready in my head in 10 secs, and it
>took 10 mins to write down, by which time I was bored and wanting to get
>onto something else.
>
>Just my 2p.

.. and a very good one it is, also - I know of a few mechanics who
were hopeless at writing reports, but could diagnose problems
with an engine just by listening and feeling. They certainly didn't
pick up that skill by reading about it!!
-- 
 
"Dungeon" Dave, in anti-harvest mode...

from: abuse@yahoo.com
from: abuse@btinternet.com
from: *@localhost

.. and it came to pass that Geoff Lane <geoff@3lanes.freeserve.co
.uk> uttered forth:
<snip>
>I believe it is associated with 'short term' memory problems rather
>than the long term, this explains the difficulty with maths as who
>works out what 7x8 is ...  if you know your tables you know it is 56.
>
.. if you know the "Hitchikers'" triology, it's 42.   ;-)

-- 
 
"Dungeon" Dave, in anti-harvest mode...

from: abuse@yahoo.com
from: abuse@btinternet.com
from: *@localhost

On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 at 11:33:36, 'Dungeon' Dave <Dungeon@SpamNot.Here>
wrote in demon.tech.pc:
(Reference: <tL1fEbAQimt4EwUS@ghastly.demon.co.uk>)

>.. and it came to pass that Geoff Lane <geoff@3lanes.freeserve.co
>.uk> uttered forth:
><snip>
>>I believe it is associated with 'short term' memory problems rather
>>than the long term, this explains the difficulty with maths as who
>>works out what 7x8 is ...  if you know your tables you know it is 56.
>>
>.. if you know the "Hitchikers'" triology, it's 42.   ;-)
>
Except that Douglas left us with the unanswered question of whether it
was the question or the answer that they go wrong.
-- 
John Underwood

On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 at 07:15:39, Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in
demon.tech.pc:
(Reference: <ODHGNKAbwit4EwRN@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>)

>Rather like a touch pregnant I should think.

But some people cope with that better than others as well (as some cope
with dyslexia compared with others).
-- 
John Underwood