![]() Most people who use passive seem to believe that they need to in order to take the focus away from the person doing the action, and that this is particularly important in scientific publications etc.Īll I can say in response is that there are a great many almost unreadable scientific papers out there that are over-wordy, constructed portacabin-like from pre-fabricated sentences, which contain nothing to keep the reader engaged. Personally, I find the grammer checker quite useful and I believe that the passive voice is Evil(TM). ![]() If I had MS Word installed on this machine I'd tell you how, but I don't think it is too obscure. I hate it whenever Word tries to encourage me not to use passive. I'd rather have a thin distribution that works quickly without consuming massive amounts of RAM and processing power. Is this a feature needed solely to promote the package (like the "often used" cruise control on every car) to the masses? This is especially true for technical documents. I have to disable it or go crazy.įor me, a grammar check is a bloat feature that doesn't add worth to a word processor. I'm sure there are websites to help others do similar swaps. They do the same when they need a human review. Personally, when I write an article or something for wide dissemination, I'll send it to a group of writers I know and trust. Now if only they could have a floating thumb tack that gives you help whenever you don't need it.ĭo people honestly use grammar check? Hasn't it been proven that no grammar checker works well enough to provide a wide cover of the English language? Yay for F/OSS bloatware! (No offense to the poster)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |