Milestone

[timwhit]

Firefox's spell checker has a very limited range. You have to be very close, and it doesn't have any contextual guessing capabilities. I don't think it would do much good.

Further, IIRC, Eric uses a laptop and simply doesn't put much effort into
correcting typos.

It works pretty well for me.

I have heard the laptop one before. I just can't imagine reading an additional 5712 posts with that many typos. On the plus side, they are easier to comprehend than most of udaman's posts.

 

[Handruin]

I dislike it when I accidentally add a misspelled word to the FF dictionary...pisses me off. It would be nice if FF had an easy way to change the dictionary...I've done this so many times now.

 

[ddrueding]

I dislike it when I accidentally add a misspelled word to the FF dictionary...pisses me off. It would be nice if FF had an easy way to change the dictionary...I've done this so many times now.

Is there any way to remove misspelled words? I have accidentally added a LOT.

 

[ddrueding]

On the plus side, they are easier to comprehend than most of udaman's posts.

They do tend to stay on a single topic, that helps. Identifying what that single topic is is your only hurdle

 

[Handruin]

Is there any way to remove misspelled words? I have accidentally added a LOT.

It's not that hard, but annoy enough to fix regularly. You can do so by following these instructions.

 

[ddrueding]

Thanks Handruin, that is one dense file! I got a headache just reading through it!

 

[mubs]

I just can't imagine reading an additional 5712 posts with that many typos. On the plus side, they are easier to comprehend than most of udaman's posts.

Gaaaaah! Bad Tim - hitting below the belt! :rotfl:

 

[Bozo]

It works pretty well for me.

I have heard the laptop one before. I just can't imagine reading an additional 5712 posts with that many typos. On the plus side, they are easier to comprehend than most of udaman's posts.

You actually read udaman's post????

Bozo :joker:

 

[Handruin]

Poor Udaman, gets no love from anyone here.

 

[timwhit]

You actually read udaman's post????

Bozo :joker:

I try about 50% of the time. I usually skim them. I don't trust opening his links at work, I'm under the impression that they all include scantily clad Asian women.

 

[paugie]

I'm under the impression that they all include scantily clad Asian women.

They do? I must search those posts out, then.

 

[LOST6200]

I'm under the impression that they all include scantily clad Asian women.

Then I'm not inetersetd in clinking on those links either.

 

[Mercutio]

At least he stopped putting inline scantily clad Asian women in his posts.

Not that there's anything wrong with Asian women.

 

[timwhit]

At least he stopped putting inline scantily clad Asian women in his posts.

Not that there's anything wrong with Asian women.

My point was that if an image like that comes up at work and someone sees I could get in trouble.

 

[udaman]

My point was that if an image like that comes up at work and someone sees I could get in trouble.

You could get in trouble for having a open copy of any number of standard women's magazines at your work (or is it a double standard and alright for women to have such magazines open at the workplace?). Perhaps your sexual harassment dept needs to fine tune their 'terms & conditions' then

Can you post the *cover* of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition without getting into trouble? Damn, I think you should find a less Nazi censorship style employer then. Remember a few years back, that silly uproar about Wal-Mart banning the SI SI 2002, when there was the busty Yamila in a nice cleavage bikini for the cover?

They must belong to these modesty police(nut cases), religious right wingers, censorship nut cases:

http://familyreformation.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/stand-up-for-decency/

http://www.cafemom.com/group/42/boards/read.php?post_id=2802983

Sports Illustrated Swim Suit edition displayed BLATANTLY at the check out stands, at the eye level of children sitting in your baskets and for older kids, such as my 9 year old son. The cover has a titillating photograph of a woman with no top on, and a beaded necklace that barely covers her nipples. The headlines promise photos of "barely there bathing suits". This item does not need to be displayed as an impulse item at the check out stand. Men know when this salacious filth comes out every year, and they can head over to the magazine section and pick it up there if they so desire. The places where it was displayed is inappropriate.
Pornography addiction is running ramapant in our society. It destroys families, takes away children's innocence and demeans women.

See now, what we need to do is ban these damned perverts, like this 'Cafemom' from going out in public. I saw the SI Swimsuit cover this year, and barely even paid much notice to the topless feature, yeah I saw it, but did not gaze at it intently trying to make out any nipples...only full on nutter case perves like that women look for the 'secret' nipplage, lol. Sicko's. BFD, lots of pictures of breasts inside most of the women's magazine, fashion magazines...not reading about them are we? Probably cause SI is read primarily by men, guess lezbo women/Ellen reading women's fashion magazines and getting their prurient jollies off is OTAY in the workplace then?


What timwhit?!?! your company is run by right-wing nuts, they would have you in trouble for viewing Sports Illustrated American (Russian born, but we take all new comers) Icon...6'3" tall Tennis Star/hottie Maria Sharapova in a bikini...sacrilege! Though most of the pictures in the link below are objectional IMO only because of the excessive eye makeup, on her lower lids; makes her look like a heroin junkie in need of a fix, going through withdraw symptoms, what's up with that???

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/2006_swimsuit/athletes/

Whoo hoo! 100 active users, most ever (ok, ok, it's only temporary until Handy deletes 1/2 of those as spam accts ).