This is not to chastise. Anyone reading that who has read any of your
previous posts would know that was unintentional, as well as out of context
in the sentence. However, I usually try to reread my stuff, as I have
become a less reliable typist. Perhaps you might stop relying on the spell
checker so much. The fact it doesn't flag an error doesn't prove there
wasn't one.
Hersch
At 11:24 AM 01/31/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>Actually it was purely electronic and mechanical. I typed "current" in but
>the computer only registered the first two and the last two characters.
>When I sent the email the spell checker did not catch the word; Microsoft
>obviously views it as a legitimate old Anglo-Saxon word. :-) What is
>unusual about this post is that the spell checker did not catch the problem.
>The system that I use for my email tends to drop characters a lot for one
>reason or another; but typically the errors are caught by the spell checker
>before transmission.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
>Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 3:35 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>
>
>
>
>Laurie Solomon wrote:
>
> > I never intended to write anything of the sort. The computer skipped some
> > characters in transmitting the message. It should have read: "you are
>still
> > more or less current and can afford...." Sorry about that.
>
>Was that Freudian web-slip?
>
>Art
