Cal Paterson wrote:
> It's grammAr. Fool. A spelling and grammAr checker in your email
> client would have empowered you and (more importantly) prevented you
> from looking like a complete idiot. See the use now?
Yeah, and? It's email. It's rough drafy and ship. Don't like it, your
probl
On 11/13/05, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These are precisely the people who shouldn't be using grammer software and
> should use spelling software with care. It is because just these people might
> not know there is a mistake in the words their software approves because
> they're s
have a
> chance to attend post-secondary education, and worry about how they
> sound. And some are educated, but still like to have both their
> spelling and grammar checked once in a while. Whenever I ask, in a
> Linux forum, why Linux word processors do not have grammar checkers,
On 2005/11/13, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mark Grieveson wrote:
>
> > It was very good. It would not only point out
> > grammar errors, but gave thorough explanations as
> > well (for example: "This sentence is in the
> > /passive voice, /ie, 'The ball was thrown by John'.
> > Consi
Mark Grieveson wrote:
> It was very good. It would not only point out grammar errors, but gave
> thorough explanations as well (for example: "This sentence is in the
> /passive voice, /ie, 'The ball was thrown by John'. Consider rewording
> to the /active voice,/ ie, 'John threw the ball'").
enever I ask, in a
Linux forum, why Linux word processors do not have grammar checkers, I
usually receive snobby answers implying that grammar checkers are
stupid, and therefore so am I. And this always surprises me.
Of course, my being surprised by snobbishness from the Linux community
is
6 matches
Mail list logo
