Spelling and punctuation

station street · Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:48 pm

My posts are so bad I could win the "Railpage Australia™'s Worst Sepller Award" Very Happy

I've had numerous arguments with many posters (Particularily Siemens725m) about my crap posts. They all have a purpose. Even if I myself can't remember what it was.... Wink

- Station Street

Thanks for a good time - but I have decided to stop posting.

- Station Street

ARG706 · Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:25 pm

I can read your posts fine. You're far from the worst here.

There was a question in the MSTS forum I was going to reply to but I couldn't make out what the hell the poster was trying to ask.

Ron_D · Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 12:54 pm

I have again struck a post that doesn't even attempt to include any punctuation, and makes posts had (impossible in cases). If their is no punctuation, capital letters, how do we know if they are asking a question & where the question finishes?
Is it really that hard to use punctuation or to spellcheck?

BTW, it's does, not dose

2001 · Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 1:03 pm

TheLoadedDog · Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 12:13 am

It's "if there ain't no punctuation nohow".

Humphrey! We're leaving!

Ron_D · Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 12:49 pm

John of Melbourne · Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:42 am

I've just discovered that I can spell-check the Rail page spell-checker!

First, the background.

I make use of two spell-checkers when posting on these forums.

The Rail page spell checker itself has the advantage of skipping formatting tags and quoted sections. The latter is quite useful when the person being quoted has spelling mistakes, and particularly if the part I want to check is split over several sections by intervening quotes. (It doesn't properly handle nested quotes, however). On the other hand, it is not very good at suggesting the right word when it finds a mistake. I frequently get the "no suggestions" box.

I also have ieSpell installed in my browser. It is faster and better at picking the correct word, but checks everything in the post (or block of selected text), including formatting codes and quoted text.

So I tend to use the Rail page spell checker if I have multiple quotes, and ieSpell otherwise.

But just tonight, I realised that if the Rail page spell checker can't find the correct spelling to suggest, and I'm not sure of the correct spelling myself, I can then use ieSpell on the Rail page spell checker's dialogue box! Thus I get the advantages of the Rail page spell checker plus the suggestion power of ieSpell.

Okay, most of you weren't interested in all that I supposed, but one or two of you might find it useful information.

doridori · Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:55 am

so peopel are that anal retentive it wouldnt suprise me if they record their stool samples ! <_-----wow WTF IS THAT ! <---ANOTHER ? <---stone the crows, the worlds bound to implode ...

May be young'n'dumb, yet unlike some, I've heart!

FieldShunt74 · Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:14 am

TheLoadedDog · Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:22 pm

John of Melbourne · Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:01 pm

2001 · Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:42 am

The major problem, John, with the RP Spellchecker - indeed many web spellcheckers - is that they are finely tuned to Uncle Sam's version of the English language.

2001

Member Falls Creek 2018 Olympics Committee.

John of Melbourne · Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:08 pm

shrdlu · Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:05 am

Hear's mie too cennts wurht:

"Oald Mutther Hubard wenned too the cubbord,

Two gett herr pur dogg aye boan.

Butt wen shee gott they're,

Ther cubboard waz bear,

Anned soa ther pur dogg hadd nun."

Jason R · Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:00 am

Given that this thread has been revived and I'm feeling like a pedant at the moment, here are some common errors that irk me:

alot: This is not a word. Instead of "there were alot of passengers on the train this morning," consider, "there were a lot of passengers on the train this morning."
misunderestimate: This is not a word either. In this context the prefix 'mis-' is superfluous as it indicates an incorrect action, which has already been denoted by the use of 'underestimate'.
irregardless: Yet another non-word. This appears to be a corruption of the words 'irrespective' and 'regardless'. Both have similar meanings— use one, or the other, but don't mix them together.

While there is some other use of language that is technically incorrect, but in my opinion, tolerable, especially on relatively informal Internet (note the capitalisation!) forums such as this, such as the use of a hyphen where a dash is indicated (although John of Melbourne notably persists with the correct use!), the use of these non-words is a crime against English!

Except General Motors.