Caspers Creations wrote:
Just download the Google toolbar and use the spell check function. It isn't perfect, but it helps.

Firefox does it on the fly as you type, like Office. It's a great browser.

Beach wrote:

Firefox does it on the fly as you type, like Office. It's a great browser.

Even better.  My point was.....use something to help out with the spelling.

Josie Nutter wrote:
On a similar note--

Models, please don't ask people to check out your "photo's".  Photographers, please don't call yourself [such and such] "Studio's". 

Unless you say something like:
"What do you think of this photo's composition?"
"Here are a list of my studio's clients."

You should not have an apostrophe in there!

Proper plural spellings:

photos
studios



Apostrophe abuse is bad.

Ill try to remember that but I have a hard enough time spelling my own name..english go figure

Christopher Brady wrote:
"Irregardless" is NOT a word!

Hmm... not the man I want to butt heads with - but it is a word, an adverb to be exact, it's just not considered "standard" English because of it's double-negatives "ir" and "less".

But it is in fact considered a "word" by Webster's standards

;o)

Christopher Brady wrote:
"Irregardless" is NOT a word!

And utilize is a horrible word that people should not use. Why bother with seven letters when three will do?

Bryanna Nicole wrote:

Hmm... not the man I want to butt heads with - but it is a word, an adverb to be exact, it's just not considered "standard" English because of it's double-negatives "ir" and "less".

But it is in fact considered a "word" by Webster's standards

;o)

use it in a sentence

Jenn Baumann wrote:
My biggest pet peeve is using "your" in place of "you're" (or vice versa) and using "to" in place of "too". I've seen sooo much of the first one lately..

That bother''s me two. Allot. In fact, I'd say sooo much.

Jessalyn wrote:
use it in a sentence

Now I could be a wise ass.. and say "Irregardless seems to be moving slowly in the direction of standardization." (as per Wikipedia) - but I like you Jessalyn (beautiful name btw) so here you go -

Irregardless of what most people think, Webster considers it a word, non-standard English, but still a word. In most cases, one can use "regardless" and convey nearly the same meaning, however the use of "double negatives" tends to convey a much stronger negative connotation.

Webster's Dictionary

I found this interesting as well ;o)

World Wide Words

Jenn Baumann wrote:
My biggest pet peeve is using "your" in place of "you're" (or vice versa) and using "to" in place of "too". I've seen sooo much of the first one lately..

Let's not forget there, they're and their.

Bryanna Nicole wrote:
Now I could be a wise ass.. and say "Irregardless seems to be moving slowly in the direction of standardization." (as per Wikipedia) - but I like you Jessalyn (beautiful name btw) so here you go -

Irregardless of what most people think, Webster considers it a word, non-standard English, but still a word. In most cases, one can use "regardless" and convey nearly the same meaning, however the use of "double negatives" tends to convey a much stronger negative connotation.

Webster's Dictionary

I found this interesting as well ;o)

World Wide Words

Webster put it in their book because people keep looking it up. It's an example that a use is misused so oftern that dictionary writers are forced to include them.

Natalie Miller Designs wrote:
I hear "irregardless" used correctly quite often.

Right, and Photoshop is a verb.

Beach wrote:

Firefox does it on the fly as you type, like Office. It's a great browser.

It can't help with differentiating between the proper use of "your" or "you're." Or "there" vs. "their" unforutnately.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

It can't help with differentiating between the proper use of "your" or "you're." Or "there" vs. "their" unforutnately.

Baby steps, I suppose.

Bryanna Nicole wrote:

Now I could be a wise ass.. and say "Irregardless seems to be moving slowly in the direction of standardization." (as per Wikipedia) - but I like you Jessalyn (beautiful name btw) so here you go -

Irregardless of what most people think, Webster considers it a word, non-standard English, but still a word. In most cases, one can use "regardless" and convey nearly the same meaning, however the use of "double negatives" tends to convey a much stronger negative connotation.

Webster's Dictionary

I found this interesting as well ;o)

World Wide Words

well I tend to make up a bunch of words when I'm angry to convey a much stronger negative connotation, but that doesn't make them words

Example:

"I am angry!!" is much stronger if I say "I am friggin'angry!!"

Beach wrote:
Your main picture in a chat room is your "avatar", not your "aviator".

avitar bothers the crap out of me too. or just the abbreviation avi is annoying.

Bryanna Nicole wrote:
Hmm... not the man I want to butt heads with - but it is a word, an adverb to be exact, it's just not considered "standard" English because of it's double-negatives "ir" and "less".

But it is in fact considered a "word" by Webster's standards

;o)

She seems irreconcilable about irregardless.

Dawn Winter wrote:

Let's not forget there, they're and their.

Darn, can't believe I forgot those..

Doug Jantz wrote:
What is sad is that so many people from other countries can speak multiple languages and we can't even take a little time to master a language we have spoken our entire lives.  I have seen photographers here who can't even correctly spell things pertaining to our own profession.  How many times have I seen aperture spelled incorrectly here?  Too many to count. 

I saw a sign once, and even took a picture of it, in the bus maintenance facility above a door which read as follows:

Through these door's walk the world's best driver's and assistant's.

At a school!  Enough said.

Some people are also bothered by sentence structure, once.

Tiff Marie wrote:
and god damn it, "a lot" is two words.  not "alot". 


a lot.

AMEN~

Bryanna Nicole wrote:

Now I could be a wise ass.. and say "Irregardless seems to be moving slowly in the direction of standardization." (as per Wikipedia) - but I like you Jessalyn (beautiful name btw) so here you go -

Irregardless of what most people think, Webster considers it a word, non-standard English, but still a word. In most cases, one can use "regardless" and convey nearly the same meaning, however the use of "double negatives" tends to convey a much stronger negative connotation.

Webster's Dictionary

I found this interesting as well ;o)

World Wide Words

Webster's dictionary LOVES to include colloquialisms and plenty of words that don't make sense including and not limited to "STUPIDER," because they want foreigners who are learning the language to be able to look up these words and get a grasp of the meaning as well as create a way for them to be educated and pointed in the right direction of the word  Correct or NOT.  It clearly states that this "word" is not proper english and should not be used... Irregardless really isn't a word.  It's a made up word that is being used far too much.  If you use the same rules as you are to define the validity of this as being an actual word, I can give you a list of words that I made up from other words that I think should be considered real words...

Bryanna Nicole wrote:

Now I could be a wise ass.. and say "Irregardless seems to be moving slowly in the direction of standardization." (as per Wikipedia) - but I like you Jessalyn (beautiful name btw) so here you go -

Irregardless of what most people think, Webster considers it a word, non-standard English, but still a word. In most cases, one can use "regardless" and convey nearly the same meaning, however the use of "double negatives" tends to convey a much stronger negative connotation.

Webster's Dictionary

I found this interesting as well ;o)

World Wide Words

------
Bravo, Bryanna! I very much enjoyed this.

Jenn Baumann wrote:
My biggest pet peeve is using "your" in place of "you're" (or vice versa) and using "to" in place of "too". I've seen sooo much of the first one lately..

Very simple solution for the grammatically challenged: spend $5 on a copy of The Elements of Style.  Read it, live it, use it. Perfect grammar guaranteed.