in comparison to all the software i've ever used since 1991 that does
spell checking, emacs is the worst possible by far.
Fuck the opensource fuckfaces, with their motherfucking smugness and
ignorance and egregious fucking lies and deceptions, to others, and to
themselves.
Now, as you may know, i write a lot, and possess a english vocabulary
that is larger than 99.99% who has a Master's degree with major in
English/Literature. And, i use emacs, and is very frustrated with its
spell checker. (its significantly slower than Mac OS X's built-in spell
checker, or the BBEdit/TextWrangler, or MicrosoftWorld) It's slower,
but also with significantly fewer words. I don't mean esoteric words or
tech lingoes (but these too), but rather words that one would find, for
example, in Time magazine articles or other literate writings. (for
example, you can goto time.com and copy and paste a article in emacs
and do a spell checking. chances are, it'll light up like a fake xmas
tree.)
the emacs spell checker is so worthless that i actually wrote a elisp
function that switch me to TextWrangler for spell checking when i need
that. (i press cmd-9, and the current buffer's file is open in
TextWrangler, than i press cmd-opt-;. and it spell checks by
highlighting unknown ones in red. I then right click on the ones that's
really misspelled (selecting from suggested alternatives). When done, i
save by cmd-s, then close cmd-w, then emacs should be back in the
forefront, then i touch the keyboard and emacs informs me the file has
changed and i type r to revert to the version on disk.)
i have brought this up on freenode's emacs irc, on at least 3 separate
occasions. And the common response is denial, driveling, equivocate,
“where's your code”, troll-crying. Them usual tech-geeking
motherfuckers. (and if i insist on the discussion to explain, they
often resort to militant hostilities, if not in the very beginning)
all the foregoing is just a foreword i quickly wrote up as a side
effect of this post. I started to write this message only just to ask,
that if i have compiled a list of words not in emacs dictionary, is
there somewhere i can submit it?
(don't motherfucking tell me its just aspell or other random helpless
drivel just so that you have some say on the matter. Yes i know it's is
aspell. If you know nothing, shut your tech-geeking mouths up. And yes
i know the existance of web search engines. If you have experience with
aspell and its community, or how emacs is integrated with it, or have
suggestions that can really do good, please respond. Thanks)
Xah
···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
"Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> writes:
> Fuck the opensource fuckfaces, with their motherfucking smugness and
> ignorance and egregious fucking lies and deceptions, to others, and to
> themselves.
And a Happy New Year to you too.
> Now, as you may know, i write a lot,
'Tis true.
> and possess a english vocabulary that is larger than 99.99% who has a
> Master's degree with major in English/Literature. And, i use emacs, and
> is very frustrated with its spell checker.
I think you were trying to say .....
"and possess an English vocabulary that is larger than 99.99% of those
who have a Master's degree with major in English/Literature. And, I use
emacs, and am very frustrated with its spell checker."
Strong on vocabulary maybe - though the first quotation above leads me to
doubt that - but weak, so weak, on grammar. The spell checker, on the
other hand, seems to work well!
atb
Glyn
Glyn Millington wrote:
> "Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> writes:
>
>
>>Fuck the opensource fuckfaces, with their motherfucking smugness and
>>ignorance and egregious fucking lies and deceptions, to others, and to
>>themselves.
>
>
> And a Happy New Year to you too.
>
>
>
>>Now, as you may know, i write a lot,
>
>
> 'Tis true.
>
>
>
>>and possess a english vocabulary that is larger than 99.99% who has a
>>Master's degree with major in English/Literature. And, i use emacs, and
>>is very frustrated with its spell checker.
>
>
> I think you were trying to say .....
>
> "and possess an English vocabulary that is larger than 99.99% of those
> who have a Master's degree with major in English/Literature. And, I use
> emacs, and am very frustrated with its spell checker."
>
> Strong on vocabulary maybe - though the first quotation above leads me to
> doubt that -
Yes, so a more useful rewrite might be: Curse the opensource panderers,
with their sanctimonious smugness and ignorance and egregious lies and
deceptions, to others and to themselves.
Better yet, I would suggest Xah lose both the paragraph and along with
it the animus towards the developers behind the spellchecker. The latter
profits him nothing and makes his life more unpleasant, not theirs. The
world will not be rid of villains, and as villains go they are not so
bad. One wants to laugh at the developers behind irritating software,
proprietary or open, not seethe at them. I have to remind myself of that
every day. :)
kt
--
The Dalai Lama gets the same crap all the time.
-- Kenny Tilton on c.l.l when accused of immodesty
I'm very disappointed in all the posts so far. None of them has
addressed the real issue. Emacs doesn't come with a spell checker. It
uses ispell or aspell. It doesn't have its own. (Of course, I could be
wrong, but last time I checked, that's how it worked)
-Rudolf
"OMouse" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm very disappointed in all the posts so far. None of them has
> addressed the real issue. Emacs doesn't come with a spell checker. It
> uses ispell or aspell. It doesn't have its own. (Of course, I could be
> wrong, but last time I checked, that's how it worked)
Yes, of course, that's why Xah is silly: he's ranting against emacs,
when he should be ranting against ispell or aspell _dictionnaries_
developers.
Both ispeel and aspell just provide the engine, the dictionaries be
them general or technical are provided separately by independent
parties.
In don't understand why this Xah characters keeps using free software.
He's clearly game for Bill Gates...
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
NOTE: The most fundamental particles in this product are held
together by a "gluing" force about which little is currently known
and whose adhesive power can therefore not be permanently
guaranteed.
"Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> writes:
> in comparison to all the software i've ever used since 1991 that does
> spell checking, emacs is the worst possible by far.
>
> F*ck
Right around here, I decided, even if I had some useful
comments, I wouldn't post them.
Didn't your mother ever wash your mouth out with soap?
Didn't you learn from the experience?
Please grow up.
Dan Espen <······@MORE.mk.SPAMtelcordia.com> writes:
> "Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> writes:
>
>> in comparison to all the software i've ever used since 1991 that does
>> spell checking, emacs is the worst possible by far.
>>
>> F*ck
>
> Right around here, I decided, even if I had some useful
> comments, I wouldn't post them.
>
> Didn't your mother ever wash your mouth out with soap?
> Didn't you learn from the experience?
Unfortunately, no. Read his bio...
> Please grow up.
Yes, please Xah!
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
ATTENTION: Despite any other listing of product contents found
herein, the consumer is advised that, in actuality, this product
consists of 99.9999999999% empty space.
Xah Lee wrote:
> in comparison to all the software i've ever used since 1991 that does
> spell checking, emacs is the worst possible by far.
What did you use in 1990?
> Fuck the opensource fuckfaces, with their motherfucking smugness and
> ignorance and egregious fucking lies and deceptions, to others, and to
> themselves.
This doesn't seem relevant.
> Now, as you may know, i write a lot, and possess a english vocabulary
> that is larger than 99.99% who has a Master's degree with major in
> English/Literature.
Of course I knew that. Your command of the English language is plain to
anyone who can read. In centuries to come, your majestic prose will
tower above such mere hacks as Shakespeare, Cervantes, Dostoyevsky, or
Tolstoy.
> And, i use emacs, and is very frustrated with its spell checker. (its
> significantly slower than Mac OS X's built-in spell checker, or the
> BBEdit/TextWrangler, or MicrosoftWorld) It's slower, but also with
> significantly fewer words.
Emacs doesn't have a spell checker. What I find particularly puzzling
is that you already know this, but still insist that it's Emacs's
fault.
Well, I say I find it puzzling, but that's actually more of my
"egregious fucking lies and deceptions". It's because you're a troll.
> I don't mean esoteric words or tech lingoes (but these too), but
> rather words that one would find, for example, in Time magazine
> articles or other literate writings. (for example, you can goto
> time.com and copy and paste a article in emacs and do a spell
> checking. chances are, it'll light up like a fake xmas tree.)
Aren't you going to give some examples of what these words might be?
I heard 'gullible' isn't in the dictionary.
> the emacs spell checker is so worthless that i actually wrote a elisp
> function that switch me to TextWrangler for spell checking when i need
> that. (i press cmd-9, and the current buffer's file is open in
> TextWrangler, than i press cmd-opt-;. and it spell checks by
> highlighting unknown ones in red. I then right click on the ones that's
> really misspelled (selecting from suggested alternatives). When done, i
> save by cmd-s, then close cmd-w, then emacs should be back in the
> forefront, then i touch the keyboard and emacs informs me the file has
> changed and i type r to revert to the version on disk.)
That's great. I feel that you went into rather too much detail, though.
> i have brought this up on freenode's emacs irc, on at least 3 separate
> occasions. And the common response is denial, driveling, equivocate,
> “where's your code”, troll-crying. Them usual tech-geeking
> motherfuckers.
Hmm. Tech-geeking isn't in my dictionary.
> (and if i insist on the discussion to explain, they often resort to militant
> hostilities, if not in the very beginning)
I wouldn't have thought that the average emacs hacker had the resources
needed to apply military force against those who disrespect them. And
it's strange that "Emacs hackers conduct bombing raids against critics"
this wasn't featured in the news. I guess there's an international
conspiracy, or something.
> all the foregoing is just a foreword i quickly wrote up as a side
> effect of this post. I started to write this message only just to ask,
> that if i have compiled a list of words not in emacs dictionary, is
> there somewhere i can submit it?
Since emacs doesn't have a dictionary, it seems unlikely.
> (don't motherfucking tell me its just aspell or other random helpless
> drivel just so that you have some say on the matter. Yes i know it's is
> aspell.
If you know it's aspell, why aren't you posting this to a group that is
likely to give a damn about aspell's dictionary? Don't worry yourself,
I already know the answer.
> If you know nothing, shut your tech-geeking mouths up.
You need to tell me what a "tech-geeking mouth" is, first, else I won't
if I have one to shut up.
> And yes i know the existance of web search engines. If you have experience with
> aspell and its community, or how emacs is integrated with it, or have
> suggestions that can really do good, please respond. Thanks)
>
> Xah
> ···@xahlee.org
> ∑ http://xahlee.org/
On Jan 7, 6:36 pm, "Nathan Baum" <···········@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Now, as you may know, i write a lot, and possess a english vocabulary
> > that is larger than 99.99% who has a Master's degree with major in
> > English/Literature.Of course I knew that.
> Your command of the English language is plain to
> anyone who can read. In centuries to come, your majestic prose will
> tower above such mere hacks as Shakespeare, Cervantes, Dostoyevsky, or
> Tolstoy.
It might, at that, since Shakespeare is the only one of these who wrote
in English.
:)
"Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> writes:
> Fuck the opensource fuckfaces, with their motherfucking smugness and
> ignorance and egregious fucking lies and deceptions, to others, and to
> themselves.
Which leads me on nicely to my next point: Don't drink and NNTP!
Cheers,
Spring
--
Gun Exchange programs would work great if they gave you a gun when you
handed in a criminal!
Well, just in case someone is really searching for the answer to
these questions, perhaps sometime in the future using Google groups
or some other search engine. It is easy to add custom words from
articles to your personal dictionary. Assuming that you trust the
copy editor of an article, you can:
cp .aspell.en.pws .aspell.en.pws.old
aspell -H list < Article.html >> ~/.aspell.en.pws
This command line says "spell check Article.html using the html
filter, and dump a list of misspelled words to the end of my
personal dictionary." Don't use > here because it will overwrite
your personal dictionary. Make a backup and cover your ass. A
safer alternative is:
aspell -H check Article.html
Then hold your finger down on the a or r key.
If you want inline highlighting of misspelled words using Emacs, you
might try flyspell at
http://www-sop.inria.fr/mimosa/Manuel.Serrano/flyspell/flyspell.html
It should be noted that neither MSWord nor Cocoa applications under
Apple OS X include their own spellcheckers. Both use a common
service that can be accessed within multiple applications. You can
even grab cocoAspell from
http://people.ict.usc.edu/~leuski/cocoaspell/home.html to use aspell
as the engine behind the Apple spell checking service. (Which I
like because aspell proposes more intelligent alternatives, and
supports more languages.)
In article
<··························@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Kirk Sluder <····@nospam.jobsluder.net> wrote:
> Then hold your finger down on the a or r key.
Whoops, that should be a (add) or l (add lower case).
On 6 Jan 2007, ···@xahlee.org wrote:
> Fuck
> the opensource fuckfaces
> , with their motherfucking smugness
> and egregious fucking lies
> Them usual tech-geeking motherfuckers.
> (don't motherfucking tell me
Is there a bad language checker for Gnus?
--
Galen Boyer
On 6 Jan 200
Some entity, AKA Galen Boyer <···········@yahoo.com>,
wrote this mindboggling stuff:
(selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
> Is there a bad language checker for Gnus?
Yeps: cl.el
Cor
--
The biggest problem LISP has is that it does not apeal to dumb people
If this failed to satisfy you try reading the HyperSpec or woman frig
(defvar MyComputer '((OS . "GNU/Emacs") (IPL . "GNU/Linux")))
Read the policy before mailing http://www.clsnet.nl/mail.html
Install dictionary.el - which uses a dozen or more online
dictionaries, you can also create a local word file.
Well that sorts out you emacs - as for you mouth, try soap and
water...