| ??? 04/09/08 20:47 Read: times |
#153093 - not the case for me Responding to: ???'s previous message |
This is particularly true of those who fat-finger their messages in so much of a hurry that they haven't time to go back and check 'em
not the case for me, I always review my posts; however, I often come back to a post of mine and say to myself "why did I not see that?" and the truth is I did not. Often, with a just typed message, you just can not see the character substitutions etc. even in a review. I have thought of this and come to the conclusion that you see the character substitutions etc. when reading unknown (if your own, then 'forgotten') messages, but do not see then when the message is 'known'. Yes, I do catch some a a review of 'fresh' text, but not all. Of course, this is just me for others "of those who fat-finger" it may be different. Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Spell check using Keil | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| What ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| What exactly are you spell checking for? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Well... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Danger of spell checking | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| wow that's interesting | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Oops! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Oh ... for the good old days ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Another Oops! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| True enough ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| not the case for me | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Where spell-checking could be useful | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I agree entirely... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the problem with spellcheckers is ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Spellcheckeritis | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| sure, I do it all te time .... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| We all screw up from time to time, but ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Useful spell checking | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| be creative! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| To be fair... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Thanks | 01/01/70 00:00 |