View Single Post
Old 10-03-2010, 08:14 PM   #428
Joebill
Fanatic
Joebill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Joebill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Joebill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Joebill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Joebill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Joebill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Joebill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Joebill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Joebill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Joebill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Joebill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Joebill's Avatar
 
Posts: 517
Karma: 459442
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Alpha Centauri's Library of Alexandria
Device: Pandigital Novel
Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe View Post
But you did not reply to my point that all dictionaries (including wikipedia) have rules and methods used when producing them and they will cause some errors in particular cases but they will overall increase reliability. So your observation in the case of Wikipedia is not enough evidence to say that it is worse than any other dictionary or similar soruces.
I only ever used dictionaries for checking my spelling.

Which leads to an interesting job interview... an interviewer told me I had misspelled words in my resume, and pointed to a company name. And said it was wrong, and I shouldn't rely on spell checkers.

I politely observed that is how they spelled it. And that I used hard cover dictionaries to double check spell checkers.

I even suggested he call them, it was a local call, he refused.

I thanked him for the interview, and left. I wondered how he could claim such... they advertised often back then. He couldn't help butk now he was wrong.

After I got home, I double checked very word. All spelled correctly.

I shrugged it off, and made ready for my next interview. I eventually got hired.
Joebill is offline   Reply With Quote