|
Trevor, Your point is valid. However, even without the programmer load the machine was way underpowered. It needed to be upgraded anyway. I can see the pro's to "peer review". I can understand the one posters "con" because of the Lowest Common Denominator syndrome at some shops. I can see lots of room for improvement in QC. However, I still can't see using these methods as an excuse to reduce the load on the server by saving cpu cycles to avoid spelling errors. And I even try to spell check documents as I go along. One, it makes sure I use the right word. Even though I have it spelled right it may be the wrong word, like though and thought, too and to, etc. Two, it makes me feel better personally. And if my electronic spell checker does find a misspelling I try to learn from it. Rob Berendt
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.