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

It reminded me of the racist crap we see lined up here everyday.

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)...

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:43:36 +0200, Giusi wrote:

> It reminded me of the racist crap we see lined up here everyday.

I don't see any racist crapo posted here unless it's mine. What is
everybody talking about? Are they google-posts or from anonymous
remailers? I have all those killfiled. And if you haven't
killfiled them by now, then you need to get on the ball and stop
whining about what you see posted here.

-sw

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

"Giusi" > wrote in message
...
> 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
>
> It reminded me of the racist crap we see lined up here everyday.
>

I'm not sure why you say that. The crap posted here every day is
intentional. This was a software problem missed by humans. Even with spell
checkers, man of us have accidently made a post or sent and email with an
error. This is the same category. You say it is actionable. Do you mean
legal action? I think you'd have to prove intent.

Melba's Jammin' wrote:


> Proofreading should always be done by two people, one reading aloud,
> the
> other checking the words.

I agree. But looks like it didn't happen in this case...

> That apoostrophe s my story and capital I
> apostrophe m sticking to it.

<grin>

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

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?

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> 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.
>
>
No, I can proofread quite well without any other person's involvement.

--
Jean B.

George Shirley wrote:

> On 4/18/2010 6:42 AM, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
IMHO, it was obviously just a mistake, because three things happened:
somebody made a typo, then the wrong choice was made when the spell
check popped up the dialog box with suggestions - and thirdly, the
proofreader(s) missed it. No matter who or what is ultimately to blame
for it, is irrelevant; no human being in their right mind would do
something like that intentionally - and attempting to sue the spell
check software writers would be rather silly, wouldn't it?

Besides, none of the above are uncommon mistakes so why it has been
interpreted as a 'racist statement' (and published on more than one
news website) just goes to show (again IMHO), that people have become
way oversensitive to these 'silly mistakes' - and it must have been a
slow news day too.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

ChattyCathy wrote on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:02:18 +0200:

>> On 4/18/2010 6:42 AM, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> IMHO, it was obviously just a mistake, because three things happened:
> somebody made a typo, then the wrong choice was made when the
> spell check popped up the dialog box with suggestions - and
> thirdly, the proofreader(s) missed it. No matter who or what
> is ultimately to blame for it, is irrelevant; no human being
> in their right mind would do something like that intentionally
> - and attempting to sue the spell check software writers would
> be rather silly, wouldn't it?

> Besides, none of the above are uncommon mistakes so why it has
> been interpreted as a 'racist statement' (and published on
> more than one news website) just goes to show (again IMHO),
> that people have become way oversensitive to these 'silly
> mistakes' - and it must have been a slow news day too.

Sometimes I wonder about nitpickers like the people who read library
books slowly and carefully and correct in non-erasable ball-point things
they see as mistakes. They're not always correct and, are in fact, about
30% of the time are just plain ignorant. There will be proof-reading
mistakes in books and unless there are more than a few, I probably would
not complain. As I said, I might not even notice one or two.


--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:43:36 +0200, Giusi wrote:
>
> > It reminded me of the racist crap we see lined up here everyday.
>
> I don't see any racist crapo posted here unless it's mine. What is
> everybody talking about? Are they google-posts or from anonymous
> remailers? I have all those killfiled. And if you haven't
> killfiled them by now, then you need to get on the ball and stop
> whining about what you see posted here.
>
> -sw

If I see a racist thread pop up here, I simply do a subject killfile.
Problem solved. ;-)
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

On 4/18/2010 9:51 AM, James Silverton wrote:
> ChattyCathy wrote on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:02:18 +0200:
>
>>> On 4/18/2010 6:42 AM, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>> IMHO, it was obviously just a mistake, because three things happened:
>> somebody made a typo, then the wrong choice was made when the
>> spell check popped up the dialog box with suggestions - and
>> thirdly, the proofreader(s) missed it. No matter who or what
>> is ultimately to blame for it, is irrelevant; no human being
>> in their right mind would do something like that intentionally
>> - and attempting to sue the spell check software writers would
>> be rather silly, wouldn't it?
>
>> Besides, none of the above are uncommon mistakes so why it has
>> been interpreted as a 'racist statement' (and published on
>> more than one news website) just goes to show (again IMHO),
>> that people have become way oversensitive to these 'silly
>> mistakes' - and it must have been a slow news day too.
>
> Sometimes I wonder about nitpickers like the people who read library
> books slowly and carefully and correct in non-erasable ball-point things
> they see as mistakes. They're not always correct and, are in fact, about
> 30% of the time are just plain ignorant. There will be proof-reading
> mistakes in books and unless there are more than a few, I probably would
> not complain. As I said, I might not even notice one or two.
>
>
Your comment made me laugh aloud. I am a fan of our local library and
had been noticing a number of books that I checked out had all
references to God blacked out. The guy who did it even had the nerve to
write "Corrected by and his name and the date he "corrected" the book."
I complained to the librarian and they called him in and suspended his
library privileges. Personally I would have had him arrested and charged
him with malicious damage to public property. I guess he was just overly
religious and felt someone had to step in. At any rate, no more
"corrected" library books.

ChattyCathy wrote:

> George Shirley wrote:
>
> > On 4/18/2010 6:42 AM, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> > >
> >> 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.
> >
> IMHO, it was obviously just a mistake, because three things happened:
> somebody made a typo, then the wrong choice was made when the spell
> check popped up the dialog box with suggestions - and thirdly, the
> proofreader(s) missed it.

It's also possible that someone relied ENTIRELY on automatic spell
check.

> No matter who or what is ultimately to blame
> for it, is irrelevant; no human being in their right mind would do
> something like that intentionally - and attempting to sue the spell
> check software writers would be rather silly, wouldn't it?
>
> Besides, none of the above are uncommon mistakes so why it has been
> interpreted as a 'racist statement' (and published on more than one
> news website) just goes to show (again IMHO), that people have become
> way oversensitive to these 'silly mistakes' - and it must have been a
> slow news day too.

I suspect that the publisher's response -- sort of apology, but saying
they don't see why it was such a big deal -- had something to do with
it.

--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers"
A Streetcar Named Expire
http://dsgood.dreamwidth.com
http://dsgood.livejournal.com
http://dsgood.insanejournal.com

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 10:51:10 -0400, James Silverton wrote:
>
> Sometimes I wonder about nitpickers like the people who read library
> books slowly and carefully and correct in non-erasable ball-point things
> they see as mistakes. They're not always correct and, are in fact, about
> 30% of the time are just plain ignorant. There will be proof-reading
> mistakes in books and unless there are more than a few, I probably would
> not complain. As I said, I might not even notice one or two.

my absolute favorite story along these lines was told by a librarian. it
seems they had a patron who would 'edit' out naughty words in books using
white-out *and then carefully draw a little asterisk with a ballpoint pen*
to represent each letter thus expunged. i would say that's going beyond
the call of duty.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:14:57 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:43:36 +0200, Giusi wrote:
>
>> It reminded me of the racist crap we see lined up here everyday.
>
> I don't see any racist crapo posted here unless it's mine. What is
> everybody talking about? Are they google-posts or from anonymous
> remailers? I have all those killfiled. And if you haven't
> killfiled them by now, then you need to get on the ball and stop
> whining about what you see posted here.
>
> -sw

it's the *manly man* flavor of the peter lucas forgers. you probably have
him killfiled.

your pal,
blake

George Shirley wrote:

> Your comment made me laugh aloud. I am a fan of our local library and
> had been noticing a number of books that I checked out had all
> references to God blacked out. The guy who did it even had the nerve
> to write "Corrected by and his name and the date he "corrected" the
> book." I complained to the librarian and they called him in and
> suspended his library privileges. Personally I would have had him
> arrested and charged him with malicious damage to public property. I
> guess he was just overly religious and felt someone had to step in.
> At any rate, no more "corrected" library books.

You made me laugh at a fond memory. When we moved my inlaws
to a new house, I had to go through their books to find money they'd
hidden. Looking through the Bible, I found my very religious mil had
crossed off every incidence of the word Hell with red pencil. It'll
probably
offend someone that I found that to be comical. Bad words in the Bible,
what's next??

nancy

Dan Goodman wrote:

> ChattyCathy wrote:

>> >
>> IMHO, it was obviously just a mistake, because three things happened:
>> somebody made a typo, then the wrong choice was made when the spell
>> check popped up the dialog box with suggestions - and thirdly, the
>> proofreader(s) missed it.
>
> It's also possible that someone relied ENTIRELY on automatic spell
> check.
>

I believe there is some software available i.e. Intelligent Essay
Assessor (IEA) that is (allegedly) capable of grading students' essays,
so you never know.

Here's a rather old article about it from the New York Times...

http://www.wired.com/culture/educati.../2001/08/45806

And here's a (current) link to the IEA product website:

http://www.pearsonkt.com/prodIEA.shtml

>
> I suspect that the publisher's response -- sort of apology, but saying
> they don't see why it was such a big deal -- had something to do with
> it.
>

I think it's known as 'damage control'. However, *somebody* must have
brought this 'silly mistake' to the media's attention in the first
place, or the batch of cookbooks in question would never had been
pulped (at considerable expense) - and I doubt we'd be having this
discussion.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy - off to check her copy of the RFC cookbook for any typos
etc.

On 4/18/2010 1:02 PM, Dan Goodman wrote:
> ChattyCathy wrote:
>
>> George Shirley wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/18/2010 6:42 AM, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>> IMHO, it was obviously just a mistake, because three things happened:
>> somebody made a typo, then the wrong choice was made when the spell
>> check popped up the dialog box with suggestions - and thirdly, the
>> proofreader(s) missed it.
>
> It's also possible that someone relied ENTIRELY on automatic spell
> check.
>
>> No matter who or what is ultimately to blame
>> for it, is irrelevant; no human being in their right mind would do
>> something like that intentionally - and attempting to sue the spell
>> check software writers would be rather silly, wouldn't it?
>>
>> Besides, none of the above are uncommon mistakes so why it has been
>> interpreted as a 'racist statement' (and published on more than one
>> news website) just goes to show (again IMHO), that people have become
>> way oversensitive to these 'silly mistakes' - and it must have been a
>> slow news day too.
>
> I suspect that the publisher's response -- sort of apology, but saying
> they don't see why it was such a big deal -- had something to do with
> it.
>
The local paper does that, everything is computerize there. I get a kick
out of looking for humorous typos every day. DW does the crossword
puzzle, I do the re-editing.

George Shirley wrote:
> On 4/18/2010 6:42 AM, Melba's Jammin' wrote:

>>
>> 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?



Why does that happen so often when someone complains about spelling?

gloria p

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 06:42:37 -0500, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:

>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.

Back when I was a baby paralegal, I was often assigned the task of
transcribing legal descriptions of real estate from the county clerk's
documents to create closing property documents. Those damned things
don't make any sense insofar as they read like "six chains from the
northeast corner of..." or "[blank] degrees west for a measure of 70.5
feet." In really old documents, which were more fun (if anything in
this process could possibly be described as fun) were references to
"the old sycamore abutting the Jones property..." To proof the
document I was creating, I had to dragoon another paralegal or other
support staff to read a copy while I proofed what I'd transcribed.
B-O-R-I-N-G does not begin to describe it, but there were damned few
typos.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--

"If the soup had been as warm as the wine,
if the wine had been as old as the turkey,
and if the turkey had had a breast like the maid,
it would have been a swell dinner." Duncan Hines


To reply, remove "spambot" and replace it with "cox"

Jean B. wrote:
> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>> In article >,

>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> No, I can proofread quite well without any other person's involvement.
>

My first job out of college was as a foreign language proofreader for an
educational publisher in Boston. This was long before the days of
computers.

As I recall we went from typewritten manuscript to final book form
through about 4 different versions including but not limited to
first-set-linotype and two versions that were printed on long scrolls of
paper, then paste-up, page proof, and unbound proof sets.

We were trained to compare each new version against the previous one,
not word by word but letter by letter or symbol, and mark the new
version with corrections.

As we finished each version it would go back to the publisher/printer
and it took a couple of weeks for them to set up the next format. That's
why it took sometimes a year or longer to publish a book. So much of the
work was manual and tedious. I lasted two years until we were married
and moved to central CT.

gloria p

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:06:16 -0400, blake murphy wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:14:57 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:43:36 +0200, Giusi wrote:
>>
>>> It reminded me of the racist crap we see lined up here everyday.
>>
>> I don't see any racist crapo posted here unless it's mine. What is
>> everybody talking about? Are they google-posts or from anonymous
>> remailers? I have all those killfiled. And if you haven't
>> killfiled them by now, then you need to get on the ball and stop
>> whining about what you see posted here.
>>
>> -sw
>
> it's the *manly man* flavor of the peter lucas forgers. you probably have
> him killfiled.

I don't have any trolls killfiled since they change their names so
often. I killfile their whole domain - usually Google, aioe, and
the various remailers.

-sw

"Giusi" > wrote in message
...
> 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
>
> It reminded me of the racist crap we see lined up here everyday.
>
I couldn't see that as racist. I thought it was funny as hell. As if
anyone would really believe the recipe called for finely ground black
people.

gloria.p wrote:
> Jean B. wrote:
>> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>>> In article >,
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>> No, I can proofread quite well without any other person's involvement.
>>
>
> My first job out of college was as a foreign language proofreader for an
> educational publisher in Boston. This was long before the days of
> computers.
>
> As I recall we went from typewritten manuscript to final book form
> through about 4 different versions including but not limited to
> first-set-linotype and two versions that were printed on long scrolls of
> paper, then paste-up, page proof, and unbound proof sets.
>
> We were trained to compare each new version against the previous one,
> not word by word but letter by letter or symbol, and mark the new
> version with corrections.
>
> As we finished each version it would go back to the publisher/printer
> and it took a couple of weeks for them to set up the next format. That's
> why it took sometimes a year or longer to publish a book. So much of the
> work was manual and tedious. I lasted two years until we were married
> and moved to central CT.
>
> gloria p
>

I LOVE proofreading. My favorite thing to proofread was Sanskrit
(with MANY diacritical marks)! My first job in Japan involved a
lot of transliterated Japanese, and that was fun too.

--
Jean B.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:03:04 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

>my absolute favorite story along these lines was told by a librarian. it
>seems they had a patron who would 'edit' out naughty words in books using
>white-out *and then carefully draw a little asterisk with a ballpoint pen*
>to represent each letter thus expunged. i would say that's going beyond
>the call of duty.

I'd like to know why such a delicate flower of a human being would be
reading those dirty, nasty books in the first place!

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

sf wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:03:04 -0400, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>> my absolute favorite story along these lines was told by a librarian. it
>> seems they had a patron who would 'edit' out naughty words in books using
>> white-out *and then carefully draw a little asterisk with a ballpoint pen*
>> to represent each letter thus expunged. i would say that's going beyond
>> the call of duty.
>
> I'd like to know why such a delicate flower of a human being would be
> reading those dirty, nasty books in the first place!
>

Conan, the Librarian?


--
Orpheus99

"A painter paints pictures on canvas. Musicians paint their pictures on
silence." ~Leopold Stokowski

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 01:00:55 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:03:04 -0400, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>my absolute favorite story along these lines was told by a librarian. it
>>seems they had a patron who would 'edit' out naughty words in books using
>>white-out *and then carefully draw a little asterisk with a ballpoint pen*
>>to represent each letter thus expunged. i would say that's going beyond
>>the call of duty.
>
> I'd like to know why such a delicate flower of a human being would be
> reading those dirty, nasty books in the first place!

obviously they were Thinking of the Children.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo>

your pal,
helen

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:29:12 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:06:16 -0400, blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:14:57 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:43:36 +0200, Giusi wrote:
>>>
>>>> It reminded me of the racist crap we see lined up here everyday.
>>>
>>> I don't see any racist crapo posted here unless it's mine. What is
>>> everybody talking about? Are they google-posts or from anonymous
>>> remailers? I have all those killfiled. And if you haven't
>>> killfiled them by now, then you need to get on the ball and stop
>>> whining about what you see posted here.
>>>
>>> -sw
>>
>> it's the *manly man* flavor of the peter lucas forgers. you probably have
>> him killfiled.
>
> I don't have any trolls killfiled since they change their names so
> often. I killfile their whole domain - usually Google, aioe, and
> the various remailers.
>
> -sw

i still thinks that's using a meat-axe rather than a scalpel, but to each
his own.

but i also 'mark read' rather than kill 'em outright. i'm such a pussy.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:14:53 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:

> George Shirley wrote:
>
>> Your comment made me laugh aloud. I am a fan of our local library and
>> had been noticing a number of books that I checked out had all
>> references to God blacked out. The guy who did it even had the nerve
>> to write "Corrected by and his name and the date he "corrected" the
>> book." I complained to the librarian and they called him in and
>> suspended his library privileges. Personally I would have had him
>> arrested and charged him with malicious damage to public property. I
>> guess he was just overly religious and felt someone had to step in.
>> At any rate, no more "corrected" library books.
>
> You made me laugh at a fond memory. When we moved my inlaws
> to a new house, I had to go through their books to find money they'd
> hidden. Looking through the Bible, I found my very religious mil had
> crossed off every incidence of the word Hell with red pencil. It'll
> probably
> offend someone that I found that to be comical. Bad words in the Bible,
> what's next??
>
> nancy

incest and murder?

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:31:52 -0500, George Shirley wrote:

> On 4/18/2010 1:02 PM, Dan Goodman wrote:
>> ChattyCathy wrote:
>>
>>> George Shirley wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/18/2010 6:42 AM, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> IMHO, it was obviously just a mistake, because three things happened:
>>> somebody made a typo, then the wrong choice was made when the spell
>>> check popped up the dialog box with suggestions - and thirdly, the
>>> proofreader(s) missed it.
>>
>> It's also possible that someone relied ENTIRELY on automatic spell
>> check.
>>
>>> No matter who or what is ultimately to blame
>>> for it, is irrelevant; no human being in their right mind would do
>>> something like that intentionally - and attempting to sue the spell
>>> check software writers would be rather silly, wouldn't it?
>>>
>>> Besides, none of the above are uncommon mistakes so why it has been
>>> interpreted as a 'racist statement' (and published on more than one
>>> news website) just goes to show (again IMHO), that people have become
>>> way oversensitive to these 'silly mistakes' - and it must have been a
>>> slow news day too.
>>
>> I suspect that the publisher's response -- sort of apology, but saying
>> they don't see why it was such a big deal -- had something to do with
>> it.
>>
> The local paper does that, everything is computerize there. I get a kick
> out of looking for humorous typos every day. DW does the crossword
> puzzle, I do the re-editing.

when the newspapers' revenues began shrinking, the first positions they cut
were proofreaders and copy editors. the washington *post* (my local paper)
has become downright appalling.

to paraphrase daffy duck: uh-oh, homonym trouble.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:02:20 -0600, gloria.p wrote:

>
> My first job out of college was as a foreign language proofreader for an
> educational publisher in Boston. This was long before the days of
> computers.
>
> As I recall we went from typewritten manuscript to final book form
> through about 4 different versions including but not limited to
> first-set-linotype and two versions that were printed on long scrolls of
> paper, then paste-up, page proof, and unbound proof sets.
>
> We were trained to compare each new version against the previous one,
> not word by word but letter by letter or symbol, and mark the new
> version with corrections.
>
> As we finished each version it would go back to the publisher/printer
> and it took a couple of weeks for them to set up the next format. That's
> why it took sometimes a year or longer to publish a book. So much of the
> work was manual and tedious. I lasted two years until we were married
> and moved to central CT.
>
> gloria p

o.k., i gotta admit that this is the first time i heard a tale of someone
who got married to escape proofreading.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:14:53 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> You made me laugh at a fond memory. When we moved my inlaws
>> to a new house, I had to go through their books to find money they'd
>> hidden. Looking through the Bible, I found my very religious mil had
>> crossed off every incidence of the word Hell with red pencil. It'll
>> probably
>> offend someone that I found that to be comical. Bad words in the
>> Bible, what's next??

>
> incest and murder?

Heh. God didn't give those Ten Commandments to Moses for nuthin'

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Apr 18, 5:14*am, Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:43:36 +0200, Giusi wrote:
> > It reminded me of the racist crap we see lined up here everyday.
>
> I don't see any racist crapo posted here unless it's mine. *What is
> everybody talking about? *Are they google-posts or from anonymous
> remailers? *I have all those killfiled. *And if you haven't
> killfiled them by now, then you need to get on the ball and stop
> whining about what you see posted here.

Right, or just ignore them and quit the damn constant whining. I use
Google, and just choose to ignore the racist crapola.....it's not hard
to scan a subject line and make a decision to read the post or
not......sheesh. And I've never felt the need to start threads
whining and bellyaching about it.

blake murphy wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:14:53 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:

>> You made me laugh at a fond memory. When we moved my inlaws
>> to a new house, I had to go through their books to find money they'd
>> hidden. Looking through the Bible, I found my very religious mil had
>> crossed off every incidence of the word Hell with red pencil. It'll
>> probably
>> offend someone that I found that to be comical. Bad words in the
>> Bible, what's next??

> incest and murder?

(laugh!) They have some hair-raising stuff in there.

nancy

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:29:12 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> > I don't have any trolls killfiled since they change their names so
> > often. I killfile their whole domain - usually Google, aioe, and
> > the various remailers.

> i still thinks that's using a meat-axe rather than a scalpel, but to each
> his own.
>
> but i also 'mark read' rather than kill 'em outright. i'm such a pussy.

What's the difference? Now, my newsreader doesn't save posts, so maybe
that's it.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel > wrote:

> blake murphy > wrote:

>> but i also 'mark read' rather than kill 'em outright. i'm such a pussy.
>
>What's the difference? Now, my newsreader doesn't save posts, so maybe
>that's it.

In my reader, "mark read" makes one post go away, "kill" kills
the entire thread. But I'm using a legacy reader nobody else
probably uses.

Steve

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
...
> George Shirley wrote:
>
>> On 4/18/2010 6:42 AM, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> IMHO, it was obviously just a mistake, because three things happened:
> somebody made a typo, then the wrong choice was made when the spell
> check popped up the dialog box with suggestions - and thirdly, the
> proofreader(s) missed it. No matter who or what is ultimately to blame
> for it, is irrelevant; no human being in their right mind would do
> something like that intentionally - and attempting to sue the spell
> check software writers would be rather silly, wouldn't it?
>
> Besides, none of the above are uncommon mistakes so why it has been
> interpreted as a 'racist statement' (and published on more than one
> news website) just goes to show (again IMHO), that people have become
> way oversensitive to these 'silly mistakes' - and it must have been a
> slow news day too.
>

When I first read the question on the survey, I read it as freshly ground
black pepper and had to go back and reread why all the answers were
concerning mistakes.

Debbie

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:11:18 -0400, blake murphy wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:29:12 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

>> I don't have any trolls killfiled since they change their names so
>> often. I killfile their whole domain - usually Google, aioe, and
>> the various remailers.
>
> i still thinks that's using a meat-axe rather than a scalpel, but to each
> his own.
>
> but i also 'mark read' rather than kill 'em outright. i'm such a pussy.

# People using these news servers suck.
-1 message-id google
!delete message-id usenetnow
!delete message-id foodbanter
!delete message-id news.alt.net
!delete message-id earthlink
!delete message-id mixmin.net
!delete message-id mixmaster.it
!delete message-id dizum.com
!delete message-id ax.lt

This is fairly safe. First line is the same as "mark Google posts
read" - but I will see them when I expand the thread, unless it's
the only post in the thread - which means it's spam and I won't see
it (until somebody responds to it).

You will not miss anything at all using these filters (except
Gregory Morrow, if he ever gets out of the hospital from that
botched sex change).

-sw

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:33:26 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

>Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>>> but i also 'mark read' rather than kill 'em outright. i'm such a pussy.
>>
>>What's the difference? Now, my newsreader doesn't save posts, so maybe
>>that's it.
>
>In my reader, "mark read" makes one post go away, "kill" kills
>the entire thread. But I'm using a legacy reader nobody else
>probably uses.
>
You don't have a choice between killing threads and killing individual
posters? I find that and the usual key words sufficient for the most
part. Of course, I have special filters that kill the trolls who
spoof regulars I *want* to see and spam du jour.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:03:50 -0700 (PDT), projectile vomit chick
> wrote:

>On Apr 18, 5:14*am, Sqwertz > wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:43:36 +0200, Giusi wrote:
>> > It reminded me of the racist crap we see lined up here everyday.
>>
>> I don't see any racist crapo posted here unless it's mine. *What is
>> everybody talking about? *Are they google-posts or from anonymous
>> remailers? *I have all those killfiled. *And if you haven't
>> killfiled them by now, then you need to get on the ball and stop
>> whining about what you see posted here.
>
>Right, or just ignore them and quit the damn constant whining. I use
>Google, and just choose to ignore the racist crapola.....it's not hard
>to scan a subject line and make a decision to read the post or
>not......sheesh. And I've never felt the need to start threads
>whining and bellyaching about it.

I haven't seen anyone whine or bellyache about it, they were just
comments. Man, you've been wimpy lately.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.