View Single Post
  #29  
Old September 22nd 18, 01:56 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Johnny B Good[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 589
Default Reception problems during heavy rain?

On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 09:34:59 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 21/09/2018 21:25, Graham. wrote:

But if I recall correctly the various forms of that proverb[1], it may
be his lad Paul that's watching his picture fall off the digital cliff
when the coat hanger swings or the string fries out.



Ah, "Dries out" as in "Wet piece of string".



yes; lorry abut by billy hypo


Very lame. The only credible typo word example in that sentence being
the final one.

If you ever feel impelled to disregard the sage advice about not
pointing out spelling errors in a Usenet posting, then at least have the
common sense to exclude those that can simply be explained away as
"finger trouble" (a "typo").

A quick check of your own keyboard to confirm your suspicions should
clarify the situation and suppress the urge to needlessly criticise these
"spelling mistakes". Obviously, if a posting is so liberally laced with
typos as to make interpreting it hard work, then, by all means, please
feel free to criticise it for the slapdash approach taken in its
production.

Anyone who thinks they can get away with the lame excuse for making no
consideration whatsoever for others in the name of making a swift reply
under extremely (to them) tight restraints upon their time, deserves all
the criticism they get imo. If their time is *so* 'precious', why the
Hell are they wasting any of it reading (let alone responding) to Usenet
postings in the first place?

I'm sure that most contributors with something worth contributing who
are cursed by Dyslexia or any condition that afflicts their typographical
prowess with a computer keyboard will have had the wit to install and
train up a speech to text application to get around their problems
anyway, so I am only having a pop at those with no consideration for
their audience's own 'time constraints'.

As is typical for postings of this nature, where the questions of
spelling, grammar and typographical accuracy are raised, there's usually
at least one or more such errors to be found lurking within no matter how
carefully it may have been proofed by, in this case, yours truly. :-(

I anticipate evidence, of the principle that it's always best to have
someone *else* proof read your opus magni, to materialise in this thread
quite shortly. Having tweaked the beard of Sod, so to speak, it's almost
inevitable that I will become the recipient of well meant criticism in
regard of the very qualities of Usenet postings I've just described. :-)

--
Johnny B Good