Author Topic: Spelling Checker Errors  (Read 18201 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Yard Ape

  • Guest
Spelling Checker Errors
« on: July 14, 2004, 14:56:46 »
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).

Offline Mike Bobbitt

  • Army.ca Owner
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 114,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,138
    • Army.ca
Re: Spell Checker
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2004, 15:08:18 »
Does it wreck words just in the spell checker preview window, or in the actual post too?

Offline Casing

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 352
  • Gimme Farnham every day
Re: Spell Checker
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2004, 18:50:13 »
Yes, I've noticed.
Yes, it messes the words up in the actual posted message.

Offline Mike Bobbitt

  • Army.ca Owner
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 114,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,138
    • Army.ca
Re: Spell Checker
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2004, 20:32:29 »
If you see it, please let me know what text it messes up. I'll see if I can reproduce it.


Thanks

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 204,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,690
Re: Spell Checker
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2004, 01:16:20 »
I've had the word-shift problem too.  The attachments show it.
It happened here: http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,17308.msg88986.html#msg88986

Offline ToRN

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 6,786
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 806
Re: Spell Checker
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2004, 01:32:15 »
I also found that the checker shifts the corrected word, but only in the checker, once it is posted, there is no misplacement.
Chimo

Offline Mike Bobbitt

  • Army.ca Owner
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 114,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,138
    • Army.ca
Re: Spell Checker
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2004, 21:35:43 »
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

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 204,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,690
Re: Spell Checker
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2004, 21:48:07 »
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:
Code: [Select]
[quote author=Infanteer link=topic=17308.msg88542#msg88542 date=1091514440]
     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.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2004, 21:52:06 by McG »

Offline Mike Bobbitt

  • Army.ca Owner
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 114,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,138
    • Army.ca
Re: Spell Checker
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2004, 22:02:16 »
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!

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 204,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,690
Re: Spell Checker
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2004, 22:05:24 »
Seems that it works for me now too.   ???

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 204,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,690
Re: Spell Checker
« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2004, 22:12:01 »
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?

Offline Mike Bobbitt

  • Army.ca Owner
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 114,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,138
    • Army.ca
Re: Spell Checker
« Reply #11 on: August 09, 2004, 09:58:31 »
Ok, the software has been updated. Let me know if you see any new spell checker problems.


Thanks

Yard Ape

  • Guest
Re: Spell Checker
« Reply #12 on: August 18, 2004, 01:57:56 »
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)

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 433,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,551
  • Crewman
Re: Spell Checker
« Reply #13 on: February 10, 2005, 01:34:28 »
2005 02 10

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


GW
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline big bad john (John Hill)

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,681
  • I am a poser
Re: Spell Checker
« Reply #14 on: February 10, 2005, 01:44:52 »
I had the same problem tonight earlier.  I thought that it was my error. 

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 138,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,719
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Spell Checker
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2005, 03:27:37 »
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
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline big bad john (John Hill)

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,681
  • I am a poser
Re: Spell Checker
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2005, 04:27:06 »
Thank you for checking on it.

Offline big bad john (John Hill)

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,681
  • I am a poser
Spell check error
« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2005, 09:00:15 »
Used the spell check and recieved following message: An Error Has Occurred!
strpos(): Offset not contained in string. 

Offline Mike Bobbitt

  • Army.ca Owner
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 114,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,138
    • Army.ca
Re: Spell check error
« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2005, 09:10:12 »
Very odd! I haven't seen that one yet... What were you posting when you saw the error?

Offline big bad john (John Hill)

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,681
  • I am a poser
Re: Spell check error
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2005, 09:11:03 »
Modifying and then spell checking.  It happened twice.

Offline Mike Bobbitt

  • Army.ca Owner
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 114,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,138
    • Army.ca
Re: Spell check error
« Reply #20 on: February 26, 2005, 09:39:09 »
I can't seem to reproduce it. What post were you editing?

Offline big bad john (John Hill)

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,681
  • I am a poser
Re: Spell check error
« Reply #21 on: February 26, 2005, 09:40:43 »

Offline Mike Bobbitt

  • Army.ca Owner
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 114,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,138
    • Army.ca
Re: Spell check error
« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2005, 09:56:21 »
Does it still do it for you? I can spell check your entries no problem...

Offline Island Ryhno

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -50
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 657
  • "Tough times go away, Tough people do not"
Re: Spell check error
« Reply #23 on: February 26, 2005, 10:18:19 »
That's a problem with your scripting (programming code string is corrupt) It's a Boolean (true, false error) I think, I'm a very amateur programmer and I have seen it before. Maybe some other good computer types can help! BTW  the spell check doesn't always work for me!
"A young man who does not have what it takes to perform military service is not likely to have what it takes to make a living."
-John F. Kennedy (JFK)

Offline big bad john (John Hill)

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,681
  • I am a poser
Re: Spell check error
« Reply #24 on: February 26, 2005, 11:56:43 »
When I tried for the third time it did not reoccur.  I just thought that you should know.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 138,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,719
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Spell check error
« Reply #25 on: March 25, 2005, 13:48:01 »
Mike, I think I've found the problem with the spell-checker error.

I'd suspected it for a while now (making enough posts to see the difference  :)), but I think the use of the "Quote Post" function is what is throwing things off.  I typed out a post and noticed the spell checker was off, so I cancelled it and cut the quoted part out of my post.  Low and behold the spell-checker started to work properly, not moving correctly spelled words over a few spaces and leaving part of the original misspelled word.

Could this be the solution to the problem?
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Mike Bobbitt

  • Army.ca Owner
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 114,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,138
    • Army.ca
Re: Spell check error
« Reply #26 on: March 25, 2005, 15:00:50 »
I tried a few tests and can't reproduce it. Next time it happens, can you post/PM me with the uncorrected text?


Thanks

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 204,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,690
Re: Spell check error
« Reply #27 on: March 25, 2005, 23:55:07 »
I've noticed that using a quote (or any BB code) increases the chances of spell-check error, but I've seen it happen even without any code.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 138,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,719
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Spell check error
« Reply #28 on: March 26, 2005, 00:08:19 »
Yeah, just noticed that as well.  Back to the drawing board.... >:(
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

seunosewa

  • Guest
Re: Spell check error
« Reply #29 on: June 03, 2005, 09:10:26 »
Hello,

I have this error on my board ( www.nairaland.com ), and I'd like to know how you fixed it.  I can reproduce it, I can see the line where the error occured but it doesn't occur on your forum

Seun

Offline Mike Bobbitt

  • Army.ca Owner
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 114,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,138
    • Army.ca
Re: Spell check error
« Reply #30 on: June 03, 2005, 10:29:17 »
Make sure you're on the latest version, which is currently 1.1 Beta 2. Not sure what version you're running, as you appear to have removed the copyright/version info from your forums. I believe this is a breach of the EULA, so you may want to consider adding it back.


Cheers
Mike

seunosewa

  • Guest
Re: Spell check error
« Reply #31 on: June 04, 2005, 04:59:01 »
I thought 1.1 beta was only available to charter members?  I'm not a charter member.

About the copyright (I commented it out, so it's still visible in the HTML code ...)

Offline Mike Bobbitt

  • Army.ca Owner
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 114,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,138
    • Army.ca
Re: Spell check error
« Reply #32 on: June 04, 2005, 10:04:15 »
You're right, 1.1 Beta 2 is only for Charter Members, sorry about that. (We're a Charter Member site.) The current public version then is 1.0.3, and I believe some spell checker fixes are coming in the 1.1 stream for you.

WRT copyright, I found this: http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=34184.0


Cheers
Mike

seunosewa

  • Guest
Re: Spell check error
« Reply #33 on: June 04, 2005, 12:49:00 »
Done so much modification to the script that I now wish I had started out with PHPBB :(  I really do not like the way the link looks on the page footer:

Army.ca Forums | Powered by SMF 1.1 Beta 2.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.

Makes it seem as if Lewis media has something to do with Army.ca

Offline Mike Bobbitt

  • Army.ca Owner
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 114,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,138
    • Army.ca
Re: Spell check error
« Reply #34 on: June 04, 2005, 16:22:34 »
Agreed, but it's a condition of using the software.

seunosewa

  • Guest
Re: Spell check error
« Reply #35 on: June 05, 2005, 02:23:32 »
Right you are.

Offline big bad john (John Hill)

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,681
  • I am a poser
Spell Check Errors Part 2
« Reply #36 on: October 13, 2006, 16:54:42 »
When using the spell check today, I noticed that it added a letter to the word that it corrected i.e. "ssentence"and then it would take the space out from between the next word, i.e. "ssentenceto".  Is this just me or am I finally loosing it?

Offline 3rd Herd

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,448
  • Cave ab homine unius libri
Re: Spell Check Errors Part 2
« Reply #37 on: October 13, 2006, 17:13:00 »
Same here BBJ I thought my computer was acting up and I was hoping to get a new one.
"if he was to be hanged for it, he told his brother, he could not accuse a man whom he believed had meant well, and whose error was one of judgment, not of intention"
Wellington

Offline MediPea

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 3,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 719
Re: Spell Check Errors Part 2
« Reply #38 on: October 13, 2006, 17:32:54 »
Same with me as well.

Offline Kyle Burrows

  • I'm Batman
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 15,863
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,540
  • "Barking out orders"
Re: Spell Check Errors Part 2
« Reply #39 on: October 13, 2006, 17:37:58 »
The Spell Check isn't exactly the best at spellchecking.  The dictionary it uses has many flaws, and as far as I know, Mike isn't able to change it.
Junior officers and NCOs who neglect to guide the thinking of their men are shirking a command responsibility.
-- February 1955 Combat Forces Journal


Offline 3rd Herd

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,448
  • Cave ab homine unius libri
Re: Spell Check Errors Part 2
« Reply #40 on: October 13, 2006, 17:41:37 »
The Spell Check isn't exactly the best at spellchecking.  The dictionary it uses has many flaws, and as far as I know, Mike isn't able to change it.

Kyle this seems to be some sort of tech problem. Extra words added to words and doubling of words. Possible that the exturnal spell checker is having problems?
"if he was to be hanged for it, he told his brother, he could not accuse a man whom he believed had meant well, and whose error was one of judgment, not of intention"
Wellington

Offline Mike Bobbitt

  • Army.ca Owner
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 114,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,138
    • Army.ca
Re: Spell Check Errors Part 2
« Reply #41 on: October 14, 2006, 16:23:39 »
It's indeed a bug in the software. If you see it, please don't correct any spelling mistakes and post or PM me the original text. I should be able to reproduce it with that.

Thanks!
Mike

Offline tlg

  • Service before self
  • Member
  • ****
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 110
  • You have no first name. It is null and void.
Re: Spell Check Errors Part 2
« Reply #42 on: October 14, 2006, 16:38:00 »
Leave it to the leader to order inferior technology. eh? EH? Say no more say no more!

Offline Zell_Dietrich

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 399
  • I’ve earned every scar I have by surviving.
Re: Spell Check Errors Part 2
« Reply #43 on: October 14, 2006, 16:50:36 »
Is is that hard to use MS word and them copy and paste?   ;) 

Bee-sides ho kneads massages spelt propeller?  Musk Pearle Kahn relocate width-ought propeller prop-ridding won’s indented meating.

 :rofl:
“Men regard it as their right to return evil for evil and, if they cannot, feel they have lost their liberty” -  Aristotle

(If you feel forced to return evil with evil,  how much liberty do you have?)

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 204,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,690
Re: Spell Check Errors Part 2
« Reply #44 on: October 15, 2006, 13:52:52 »
It's indeed a bug in the software. If you see it, please don't correct any spelling mistakes and post or PM me the original text. I should be able to reproduce it with that.

Thanks!
Mike
Mike,
It is the same "word-shift" error that you previously fixed.  Same pseudo correlation to BB code as well.

Offline Mike Bobbitt

  • Army.ca Owner
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 114,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,138
    • Army.ca
Re: Spelling Checker Errors
« Reply #45 on: October 18, 2006, 17:46:28 »
Yeah, it appears to be the same issue. Looks like it wasn't fully fixed. Examples of "bad posts" will help a lot in tracking the problem.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 433,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,551
  • Crewman
Re: Spelling Checker Errors
« Reply #46 on: October 18, 2006, 17:58:56 »
I have found it to be random.  Sometimes it works just fine, other times it will offset the corrected word.  There is absolutely no pattarn to it.  (I just used Spell Check and it recognized "pattarn" as a word, when it should be "pattern".)  Perhaps education would set it on a new course.  (It managed to correct "edjucation" and "cource" with no problems.)
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline GUNS

    ARMY.CA coin is back at FMG.

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 1,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 609
  • Are the spades dug-in?
Re: Spelling Checker Errors
« Reply #47 on: October 18, 2006, 18:18:31 »
Trouble is if you can't spell, how do you know if the word is correct or not. ;D

If there was no spellcheck,ell me post woul b omriedable.
When I do right, no one remembers.
When I do wrong, no one forgets.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 433,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,551
  • Crewman
Re: Spelling Checker Errors
« Reply #48 on: October 22, 2006, 11:05:04 »
Mike

Here is an example of a random occurring flaw in the Spell Check (Original copy and Spell Checked Copy).

ORIGINAL



I wonder what our new 'friend' deserter has to say about this from the International community:

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=2341&l=1

Quote
Joint Statement by The International Crisis Group, Care International, and the International Rescue Committee on The Expansion of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan
Statement
31 October 2003

Our organizations have just completed a round of consultations with NATO in Brussels and Washington on the expansion of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. The following are the key points we conveyed to NATO:


1.   Our organizations welcome UN Security Council resolution 1510 authorizing ISAF expansion beyond Kabul, as well as recent NATO expressions of its willingness to take on this important additional responsibility.


2.   We believe that an expansion of international peacekeeping beyond Kabul is an essential element of support by the international community to Afghan authorities over the next year in the run-up to the constitutional loya jirga and national elections. Improving security outside Kabul is also vital to reconstruction efforts, which have been hampered by an increase in attacks on aid agencies – from one per month to one every two days – over the past year.


3.   Now that NATO has agreed to lead ISAF expansion, we urge it to move quickly from planning to implementation. While careful planning is important, timely action is also essential to respond to the numerous threats – including extremist elements, powerful warlords and a resurgent drug trade – to continued progress in Afghanistan. It is also imperative that ISAF’s presence outside Kabul be meaningful in scale. The deployment of a handful of additional Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) would simply not be adequate to fulfill its mandate.


4.   While we welcome the willingness of the German government to send an ISAF team to Kunduz, we urge that NATO give priority in subsequent deployments to the most insecure locations in Afghanistan. We also call on all NATO member governments, and other governments interested in the future of Afghanistan, to commit the additional troops, equipment and funds required to support ISAF’s expanded mandate. Without significant additional resources, the recent UN and NATO decisions to expand ISAF will be little more than hollow gestures.


5.   We also urge NATO to focus the activities of all ISAF forces in Afghanistan, including additional teams deployed outside Kabul, on security-related tasks, leaving reconstruction to the Afghan government and civilian aid agencies. In particular, we urge that ISAF focus on: training professional Afghan police and military forces; and assisting in the implementation of a comprehensive program of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration into civilian life of those militia forces that do not qualify for the new police and army. Given ISAF’s mandate as an “assistance” force, building the capacity of the Afghan government to provide for the security of its people should be the central focus of its activities.

In conclusion, our organizations welcome NATO’s decision to take on the challenge of ISAF expansion in Afghanistan. We now urge it to implement this decision quickly, and to do so in a manner that will improve the security of the Afghan people and aid agencies involved in reconstruction, while also creating conditions for the successful completion of the Bonn process. To do less would be to risk the collapse of international efforts to help the Afghan people create a more peaceful, prosperous and democratic Afghanistan.


Brussels, 31 October 2003

Does the Canadian Peace Alliance not follow what other Peace organizations around the world are doing?  Perhaps it has its own subversive agenda?  As noted elsewhere, approximately 50% of its support for the 28th Oct Rally comes from Islamic fundamentalist groups, Communist and Socialist organizations, and Student organizations.  None of which would truly be considered supporters of a safe, orderly, Democratic Society.





SPELL CHECKED

I wonder what our new 'friend' deserter has to say about this from the International community:

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=2341&l=1

Quote
Joint Statement by The International Crisis Group, Care International, and the International Rescue Committee on The Expansion of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan
Statement
31 October 2003

Our organizations have just completed a round of consultations with NATO in Brussels and Washington on the expansion of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. The following are the key points we conveyed to NATO:


1.   Our organizations welcome UN Security Council resolution 1510 authorizing ISAF expansion beyond Kabul, as well as recent NATO expressions of its willingness to take on this important additional responsibility.


2.   We believe that an expansion of international peacekeeping beyond Kabul is an essential element of support by the international community to Afghan authorities over the next year in the run-up to the constitutional loya jirga and national elections. Improving security outside Kabul is also vital to reconstruction efforts, which have been hampered by an increase in attacks on aid agencies – from one per month to one every two days – over the past year.


3.   Now that NATO has agreed to lead ISAF expansion, we urge it to move quickly from planning to implementation. While careful planning is important, timely action is also essential to respond to the numerous threats – including extremist elements, powerful warlords and a resurgent drug trade – to continued progress in Afghanistan. It is also imperative that ISAF’s presence outside Kabul be meaningful in scale. The deployment of a handful of additional Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) woulPR Tsmply not be adequate to fulfill its mandate.


4.   While we welcome the willingness of the German government to send an ISAF team to Kunduz, weKudzuthat NATO give priority in subsequent deployments to the most insecure locations in Afghanistan. We also call on all NATO member governments, and other governments interested in the future of Afghanistan, to commit the additional troops, equipment and funds required to support ISAF’s expanded mandate. Without significant additional resources, the recent UN and NATO decisions to expand ISAF will be little more than hollow gestures.


5.   We also urge NATO to focus the activities of all ISAF forces in Afghanistan, including additional teams deployed outside Kabul, on security-related tasks, leaving reconstruction to the Afghan government and civilian aid agencies. In particular, we urge that ISAF focus on: training professional Afghan police and military forces; and assisting in the implementation of a comprehensive program of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration into civilian life of those militia forces that do not qualify for the new police and army. Given ISAF’s mandate as an “assistance” forcassistance the capacity of the Afghan government to provide for the security of its people should be the central focus of its activities.

In conclusion, our organizations welcome NATO’s decision to take on the challenge of ISAF expansion in Afghanistan. We now urge it to implement this decision quickly, and to do so in a manner that will improve the security of the Afghan people and aid agencies involved in reconstruction, while also creating conditions for the successful completion of the Bonn process. To do less would be to risk the collapse of international efforts to help the Afghan people create a more peaceful, prosperous and democratic Afghanistan.


Brussels, 31 October 2003

Does the Canadian Peace AThiance not follow what other Peace organizations around the world are doing?  Perhaps it has its own subversive agenda?  As noted elsewhere, approximately 50% of its support for the 28th Oct Rally comes from Islamic fundamentalist groups, Communist and Socialist organizations, and Student organizations.  None of which would truly be considered supporters of a safe, orderly, Democratic Society.



DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Mike Bobbitt

  • Army.ca Owner
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 114,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,138
    • Army.ca
Re: Spelling Checker Errors
« Reply #49 on: October 22, 2006, 13:56:48 »
Thanks George, I've narrowed it down to the – character in the quoted material. It's not a "standard" dash (– vs. -) and it appears the spell checker gets confused by that. I've reported this to the software vendor.

Offline 241

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 268
Re: Spelling Checker Errors
« Reply #50 on: November 01, 2006, 02:19:17 »
I just noticed that when It trys to correct the errors it inserts the correct word into the middle of the incorrect word not erasing any of the incorrect word....Here is the text I am referring to (already fixed it manually because I didn't know you needed it till after....

Re: Not what I expected after class...

Well I believe what was originally said was that OCdts not required to be addressed as Sir or saluted....As for referring them as Sir while instructing on there BMQ...I have never/will never as that would infer that I hold them at a higher level as there course mates when actuality I do not I treat all of them the same....As Recruits nothing more as they have not even begun to prove they are soldiers...Only that they think they want to be one....As for refreferring OCdts Sir while in unit....There has only been one in the 8 to 9 years I have been in that I ever refreferred as Sir and that is because he had achieved rank of MBdr (was on my JLC/JNCO course) and actually had a clue as to what he was saying unlike most of them that figure that they as a OCdt. with 8 weeks in uniform have any right or knowledge that would allow them to order me, a MBdr 8 - 9 years exp, around....Don't really care who there mommy or daddy etc not gonna happen....OK better sorry if I went a little off topic with that rant....

Offline Yrys

  • α-γνωστικισμός
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 31,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,187
  • You can deprive the body but the soul needs choco!
Re: Spelling Checker Errors
« Reply #51 on: November 02, 2006, 18:22:44 »
Tonight, the spell checker propose some correction, but didn't
always change something after that I click 'Change' ...
Louvre website

"Happiness is beneficial for the body, but it is grief that develops the powers of the mind."  Marcel Proust

Offline Mike Bobbitt

  • Army.ca Owner
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 114,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,138
    • Army.ca
Re: Spelling Checker Errors
« Reply #52 on: November 02, 2006, 19:34:35 »
241,

I just spellchecked your excerpt and didn't see any mis-alignments. Is it possible the text changed?

Offline 241

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 268
Re: Spelling Checker Errors
« Reply #53 on: November 02, 2006, 19:47:48 »
That text was after I fixed it manually, I didn't realize until after I changed it that you said to post the uncorrected versions sorry...

Offline Mike Bobbitt

  • Army.ca Owner
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 114,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,138
    • Army.ca
Re: Spelling Checker Errors
« Reply #54 on: November 02, 2006, 19:57:16 »
No worries, we'll catch it next time.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 433,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,551
  • Crewman
Re: Spelling Checker Errors
« Reply #55 on: December 05, 2006, 15:51:00 »
Mike

Did you install a new Spell Check?

It is all white now and you need to scroll to find the buttons, etc.  I tried dragging the corner out to make it larger and do away with the scroll bar, but it would not stretch. 
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Mike Bobbitt

  • Army.ca Owner
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 114,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,138
    • Army.ca
Re: Spelling Checker Errors
« Reply #56 on: December 10, 2006, 11:00:40 »
Thanks George, I think I've fixed this now.


Cheers
Mike