ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) (03/28/85)
> > Seen in net.sf-lovers: > > > > > ... But, frankly, [author]'s pros tend to be sloppy. > > > > Like that? > > Hmm, in the proper net.flame context, *does* two typos constitutes > sloppy pros? It has always unexaggeratedly been my humbel opinion, that > that are sloppy instead of typoes, scrambled sentences. Also, verbs > which doesn't agree with the numbers of the subject, and also which > have failed to agree with the tenses of an other verb in the sentence. > have failed to agree with the tenses of an other verb in the sentence. > > (But this is why there are copy-editors. (Except at Blue Jay and DAW.) ) Additional exception: AT&T Bell Labs. How many others wonder about the typos in the new Unix BLTJ? If Unix's source code had the same proportion of uncorrected typos, no one would ever have heard of Unix. -- Norman Diamond UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa "Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."
john@x.UUCP (John Woods) (04/03/85)
> Additional exception: AT&T Bell Labs. How many others wonder about the > typos in the new Unix BLTJ? If Unix's source code had the same proportion > of uncorrected typos, no one would ever have heard of Unix. You obviously haven't READ the source code !-) -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA Think of it as "evolution inaction". There are no unintentional spelling errors in this article.