Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site amdahl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!amdahl!gam From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: what spell(1) doesn't do... Message-ID: <2666@amdahl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 30-Jan-86 00:31:54 EST Article-I.D.: amdahl.2666 Posted: Thu Jan 30 00:31:54 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 1-Feb-86 01:41:50 EST References: <1048@lsuc.UUCP> <1175@osu-eddie.UUCP> <2645@amdahl.UUCP> Reply-To: gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) Followup-To: whereever you think best Organization: Amdahl Corp, UTS Products Group Lines: 37 Summary: two words it didn't catch In response to my article objecting to force spell(1) to be applied to articles before they are posted, I received two letters, each pointing out errors in my original posting (which was run thru spell(1), by the way). The first pointed out my error in the use of 'pedantists': > to appease the pedantists who cannot tolerate seeing misspelled ^^^^^^^^^^ I was corrected that this should have been 'pedants'. I checked the dictionary and this is true; there is no 'pedantists', and 'pendants' is the word I wanted. The second pointed to the word 'thru': > PS -- I ran this article thru spell before posting it (I thought ^^^^ No excuse, that's how I spell; that's how I think it *should* be spelled. I hope that 'thru' will become the accepted spelling of 'through', but it is at least currently used in 'conversational' writing. (In formal writing I still use 'through'). By the way, both of the letter-writers agreed with me not to force spell onto article-posters. [ Since I wasn't sure where to direct the follow-ups to, I've garbaged the "Followup-To: " line in the header. I read net.nlang, too, so if you want to persue that angle.... ] -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,seismo,hplabs}!amdahl!gam ~ And what is truth? ~ ~ Is truth unchanging law? ~ ~ We both have truths ~ ~ Are mine the same as yours? ~