This issue has been one of the more labor intensive to produce. I basically took all the DOS based things I do to the paper and made them Windows based. This means no more DOS text editor, no more DOS name sorter and no more DOS parser. Egads! I went through three 32 bit text editors before finally coming back to Gator Edit, a 16 bit text editor.
With the switch in editors comes a new format, etc. Let me know if you get split lines, etc. I have Gator in word wrap without CR/LF at the ends of the lines.
I was also bummed out about the failure to secure the person for the interview we wanted. We are still trying and have been told by his people that we are on the list. I'll start the regular interviews up again in the next issue.
I'm about to get ready to send everyone a poll by email. I downloaded some nifty software that lets us conduct polls via email without having to tally the results by hand. We're going to try this. This poll is just our way of trying to see if we are satisfying the needs of our readers. When you receive this, please take a few minutes and fill it out. It can only benefit you!
Reading a recent issue reminded me of one of my "pet peeves," i.e., the limitations of computer spell checkers.
Before getting specific, I should mention that everywhere I've worked over the years, in 9 to 5 "straight jobs" since I first became a published writer, I've become the ad hoc editor for everyone's written work.
People I work with/for bring their letters, memos, etc., to me for review.
It's flattering but somewhat frustrating for someone who has an
affection for the language, to see what some others do with/to it.
Not least among the problems is that many people rely on their word processing program's spell checker, without reference to the appropriate use of specific words that the spell checker won't cite for correction.
Which brings us to our first example.
cite/site/sight -- I sited several instances; on these cites; I went back to the work sight -- I saw each of these usages recently. Clearly (I hope), each is wrong, but a spell checker won't spot them.
Simply put, a spell checker spots only text strings which have not previously been entered on its list of words, whether the spelling is correct or not.
Hence certain correct spellings will be cited (like the way I snuck
that in?) as possible misspellings, while other words which are
incorrectly used, will be missed.
Because each of the words -- cite, site, and sight -- are words, the
spell check utility will pass over them.
Alternatively, the use of the a word like "therefor" which doesn't have an "e" following the final "r" will be spotted as a possible misspelling (the word is often used in legal documents, e.g., "his car collided with that of the Plaintiff and his negligence was the reason therefor").
In essence, what we probably need is a "usage checker."
to/two/too -- I thought that virtually everyone who hadn't slept through elementary school had learned the difference among these three words. My reading of documents prepared by workmates, and communication on the internet, suggest a contrary conclusion.
I went to the store. John did too. We bought two cases of beer and
got blitzed.
The number of usages of "to" in place of "too" are too numerous to have counted. In addition
