> But spelling is usually not that important. Sometimes true, but I've always thought it strange that people who spend much time with computers, and who know a

> But spelling is usually not that important. Sometimes true, but I've always thought it strange that people who spend much time with computers, and who know a horror story or two about seemingly trivial lexical errors resulting in catastrophes, object to those who correct spelling. > It's not as if anyone is confused by the use of the incorrect word "phosphorous". Not true. They're not even the same part of speech. The correct word is a noun, the misspelled word is (or can be) a verb. In this case it went beyond a simple spelling error -- because the paper was technical and scientific, a different standard must be applied. In science publishing, how one spells technical terms is a deal-breaker. It is to science what "ingenious/ingenuous" means to a liberal arts graduate -- the difference is so great that it's a standing joke. > It's not like silicone / silicon ... Actually, to a biologist or a chemist, it's exactly like that. > Having said all that the Underground Grammarian makes a good point in "Trifles" ... I'm familiar with the piece and I agree with the sentiment, but this wasn't a trifle. Writers regard this issue in the same way that musicians regard popular music. And scientists who publish must be writers as well as scientists.