Spelling Checker Errors

[Yard Ape]

Does anybody else find that the spell checker does some shifty things to your work?  Sometimes when it has corrected the rare spelling mistake (no modesty here) it has overtyped the corrected spelling starting midway through the mis-spelled word and onto the next word (making a large meaningless string of letters).

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

Does it wreck words just in the spell checker preview window, or in the actual post too?

 

[casing]

Yes, I've noticed.
Yes, it messes the words up in the actual posted message.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

If you see it, please let me know what text it messes up. I'll see if I can reproduce it.


Thanks

 

[McG]

I've had the word-shift problem too.  The attachments show it.
It happened here: http://army.ca/forums/threads/17308/post-88986.html#msg88986

 

[Scratch_043]

I also found that the checker shifts the corrected word, but only in the checker, once it is posted, there is no misplacement.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

I have a request. Any time the spell checker mis-aligns something like this, can you post the text in this thread? Please post the uncorrected text. I.E. the text that showed the spelling mistakes, so we can try to figure out what's happening here.


Thanks
Mike

 

[McG]

I also found that the checker shifts the corrected word, but only in the checker, once it is posted, there is no misplacement.

The shift was still there the last time I tried that.

Mike, here is the uncorrected text from my example:

[quote="Infanteer"]
     I might say I am a little more inclined towards having a "US Style" system of civilian appointment followed by Parliamentary confirmation.  You could avoid conflict of interest issues in that a MP happens to be at both times a representative of his riding and of his Ministry.  If I am a citizen of riding X, I want my minister to focus on the local issues and dealing with pertinent legislation, not trying to manage the budget and deal with the nightmare bureaucracy that is the Department of National Defence.  [/quote]What about a system in which the executive was chiefly in the Senate?  People could elect an MP to represent thier riding in the commons, while they could elect to Senate the people they want to see in the executive (and as the check/balance to the commons).  I think I would prefer the current location of the executive, but this is an alternative that keeps it with elected officials.

On the issue of provincialy appointed senators, I agree with Infanteer.  A province with a majority government could see its legislature stack the Senate with members of the dominate party.  Better to let the people decide.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

Thanks McG. For some reason, it shows aligned perfectly for me, but good to have the text anyway. We'll find a connection here yet!

 

[McG]

Seems that it works for me now too.  ???

 

[McG]

Okay, I found a good example.  I've found a post that the spell checker will apply word-shift to every CF acronym.

With the stand-down of Pioneer Platoons already started, will the Army be capable of providing sufficient Engineering support on operations? 

To create a perspective on the issue, consider that a Pnr Pl was structured the same as a Fd Engr Tp and employed the same equipment.  Each Bde had 3 x Pnr Pl; the equivalent of a Fd Engr Sqn.  Each CER has two under-strength Fd Engr Sqns.  That means there is an effective reduction by 1/3 of the Field Engineering capability within each Bde. 

I have heard arguments, based changes to the 20 CMBG model, that describe how this is feasible. (An Infantry Bn with a Fd Engr Sqn attached used to have 3 x Fd Engr Tp and 1 x Pnr Pl to support 4 x Rifle Coy.  It will now have 3 x Fd Engr Tp to support 3 x Rifle Coy).  However, 20 CMBG does not accurately reflect what we deploy on operations.

Do the Engineers need an increase in authorised establishment that corresponds to the number of eliminated Pioneers, or are there ways for us to absorb their tasks without negatively affecting those tasks which we have always been responsible for?

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

Ok, the software has been updated. Let me know if you see any new spell checker problems.


Thanks

 

[Yard Ape]

Ok, the software has been updated. Let me know if you see any new spell checker problems.

New look, but it just did the same old thing to me.  I forgot to save my text though.  (For that, I'll fall on my sword later)

 

[George Wallace]

2005 02 10

I notice that SPELL CHECK is doing some funny things this evening with numerous posts by different people.


GW

 

[big bad john]

I had the same problem tonight earlier.  I thought that it was my error. 

 

[Infanteer]

For some reason, the spell checker sporadically corrects words, but puts the corrections a few spaces up - almost as if one had hit the insert button and typed it in.  It has been a problem for some time now but appears hard to nail down because it is sporadic.

Infanteer

 

[big bad john]

Thank you for checking on it.

 

[big bad john]

Used the spell check and recieved following message: An Error Has Occurred!
strpos(): Offset not contained in string. 

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

Very odd! I haven't seen that one yet... What were you posting when you saw the error?

 

[big bad john]

Modifying and then spell checking.  It happened twice.