Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: polygonum Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: Whats left of Usenet? Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 07:35:23 +0100 Organization: me Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <878tw9wr3c.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> <456b06eb-f46b-4119-b7f9-12672dcf6274@googlegroups.com> Reply-To: rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net p/pX7r3KQpkJiVa7jN0Kdg5LzCD7AgmAVFgFs3yu9te2vLCQw= Cancel-Lock: sha1:pJdStgQwL+MbqKOQbXQ7BL6aKfw= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com comp.misc:11870 On 31/08/2016 05:11, Paul Sture wrote: > On 2016-08-31, Larry Sheldon wrote: > >> I try, most of the time, to read "Typo" where "English" was expected >> >> But I WOULD like to know why it is that most of my own typos are not >> visible to me until somebody quotes me (even without reference to the >> typo). > > There's a reason publishers (used to) employ proof readers. > > A thought does strike me though. I don't remember having this > difficulty in the days of hand written letters. Was the pain of having > to start a new page afresh in the case of mistakes sufficient to make > you concentrate that little bit harder before committing pen to paper? > And a reason that (some?) proof readers actually read the text backwards. -- Rod