Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
???
06/13/10 13:34
Read: times


 
#176637 - Vandalism Highly Doubted
Responding to: ???'s previous message
Murray - I think that vandalism is highly doubtful. First off the page read count will increment to two simply by you going to open the posting again. This forum version does not seem to lock out page read count increments that arise from the same IP address location. (At least that has been my experience).

Also know that the word "unexpectantly" is not a normal word. Both the Google Dictionary and the one at www.dictionary.com indicate that the word was not found for English. Google Dictionary goes one further to suggest that "Did you mean unexpectedly".

Also know that the spell checker in Microsoft WORD will recommend "nnrepentantly" as the first and only choice for the replacement word for the not found "unexpectantly". The spell checker in Firefox will offer up "unexpectedly" as one of the replacement choices.

So I have to suggest that somehow in your posting process that the word got replaced. You mention that you had the text of the posting in the clipboard as a result of doing the spell check. I do not know what application you used for the spell check but I suspect it was Microsoft Word.

BTW, you may want to consider using FireFox browser as it gives you the spell check option directly inside the edit box here on the 8052.com forum in the way of putting the squiggly red line under any word it does not recognize. The fix-it options are offered via a right click on the squiggly word.



Michael Karas


List of 34 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
Conditional SFR Declaration?            01/01/70 00:00      
   ReDef            01/01/70 00:00      
   Preprocessor -vs- Compiler            01/01/70 00:00      
      Thanks...            01/01/70 00:00      
   A Loosely Related Query?            01/01/70 00:00      
      .h file            01/01/70 00:00      
         Yep, that works!            01/01/70 00:00      
            I would not            01/01/70 00:00      
               Good question...            01/01/70 00:00      
            A Rethink...            01/01/70 00:00      
               I don't know ... but            01/01/70 00:00      
                  Agree with Michael            01/01/70 00:00      
                  An overthink.            01/01/70 00:00      
               #including #includes            01/01/70 00:00      
                  totally?            01/01/70 00:00      
                     re: really?            01/01/70 00:00      
   Still no luck...            01/01/70 00:00      
      Like I said before....            01/01/70 00:00      
      HAL            01/01/70 00:00      
      just curious            01/01/70 00:00      
         Nicely workable solution found...            01/01/70 00:00      
            Post vandalised!            01/01/70 00:00      
               What do you mean ...            01/01/70 00:00      
                  I mean this...            01/01/70 00:00      
                     Vandalism Highly Doubted            01/01/70 00:00      
                        Thanks Michael.            01/01/70 00:00      
      Define a new sfr?            01/01/70 00:00      
         RE: This assumes that location 0x8E is always the register            01/01/70 00:00      
         Simplest Solution?            01/01/70 00:00      
            I think HAL is less risky?            01/01/70 00:00      
               HAL very interesting...            01/01/70 00:00      
                  RE: might not be so immediately well understood            01/01/70 00:00      
                     Ah, now I see...            01/01/70 00:00      
                        No, you don't need a HAL header file for each variant!            01/01/70 00:00      

Back to Subject List