In article >,
ChattyCathy > wrote:

> Giusi wrote:
>
> > It seems to me lately, like the past 15 years, that editing text has
> > been left to the machines and so far they don't understand the
> > differences of
> > language. It's irritating at best. In this case it's actionable.
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8627335.stm
>
> Heh. Spell check and/or predictive text functions do often come up with
> some really dumb suggestions, and IMO, the original typo must have been
> something like "peope" to go from "pepper" to "people".
>
> However, I'd also place blame on the (human) proofreader in this case -
> I mean nobody's perfect, but this turned out to be a rather expensive
> and highly embarrassing mistake for the publisher concerned. Have a
> feeling this particular proofreader got lazy and only proofread the
> method/instructions of the recipes, because (s)he thought (wrongly)
> that the ingredients lists could not possibly have any mistakes (or it
> didn't really matter if they did)...

Proofreading should always be done by two people, one reading aloud, the
other checking the words. That apoostrophe s my story and capital I
apostrophe m sticking to it.


--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
Updated 4-11-2010