Misspellings, fact errors and typos: An editor's look at the not-so-fine print
Maybe the author just types with a stutter! Sheesh!!!! So in-insensitive!Chris
For your in-information, you are in-incorrect. I would never make light of an in-individual who in-inadvertently in-included “in” and then in-included “in” again-in. Any in-inklin-in-g of in-insensitivity is merely in-incidental.