>>I've seen some technicians really benifit from a SAT, especially when older oops, that's "benefit". >>age compremises his or her upper frequency hearing. I've also believed... oops, again. That's "compromise". Looks, like I would "benefit" most from an e-mail program with an integrated spell-checker, so that I don't "compromise" my credibility any more than is necessary. An electronic device may be helpful here afterall. But if I let it change the spelling for me, have I really learned how to spell? Or have I just become too complacent to get off of my bottom, and look it up? Spell checkers are much more "accurate" than humans will ever be, but should we allow them to do most if not all of our writing? Wouldn't this surely limit the personality of such correspondence? Perhaps, I should "learn" how to spell first. Kinda reminds me of ETDs... Cheers, Brian Henselman, RPT p.s. It's not the machines that I object to. My objection is to each human's tendency to follow the path of least resistance. Just because something is easier, or more accurate, doesn't insure that it's still better. If this were true, then we will have have become nothing more than the servants to the machine, be it a spell checker, or an ETD. This thought doesn't appeal to me.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC