On 4/18/2010 6:42 AM, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In >,
> > 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.
>
>
Okay, next time I have to proofread a technical manual I will call you
and you can read it aloud while I check the words. I am always careful
about the wording because my industrial clients would go ballistic if I
misspelled anything or inadvertently put a racist statement in the manual.

I just read your sentences aloud, did you read them to yourself?