That quote once again reminds me of something. More years ago than I like to recall, I took college level accounting courses from an instructor who was a retired CPA and a CMA. I can recall a few students turning in work which rated an "A" based on the accounting and receiving a "B" or "C" due to spelling and grammar.
Of course, there were gripes. His reply was, I thought, quite instructive. He maintained that accounting was a profession and that, as a professional, you had to present yourself in a fashion that promoted trust in your competence. One sentence that stuck in my mind was "many employers are not going to tolerate a spreadsheet in which the word 'receivables' is misspelled."
Based on the preceding, written statements by the Cyclone officers frequently boggle my mind. For example, the use of the word 'dint'. It's a quite proper word meaning 'by force of', such as in "By dint of hard work, she succeeded." It is NOT, however, a contraction for "did not". We're hardly talking collegiate level English, this is stuff that should have been second nature by Junior High.
One mind boggling aspect is that Cyclone is presenting itself as a high technology company ... that hasn't mastered spell check. Why would anyone believe a company can pull off totally original, advanced product development when displaying education not exceeding that of an elementary school student?
Of course, I know that many people disparage such things as literacy, assuming technical know-how is a separate thing entirely. Let's think about this, however. When writing for public consumption, you are giving the world an example of your work...and, by extension, the pride you take in that work. If you can't muster the discipline to correct something as simple as punctuation, capitalization, grammar, spelling and such, why would anyone assume greater discipline prevails when undertaking engineering, budgeting, contracting and so on? It's not unreasonable to assume laxity in one area extends elsewhere. Frank Borman once noted that you really had to clean the ashtrays on your airliners because, otherwise, passengers might conclude that you are skipping jet engine maintenance. That sounds a bit over the top until you realize that the passengers have little else to go on.
In the case of Cyclone, I think the above is quite indicative. Just think of all the claims, counter claims, predictions, schedules and so on that have fallen apart. As often as not, this has been because the company has made lax assumptions rather than applying rigorous standards. If spell check is too much effort, what does this tell us about the perceived importance of testing before committing to products?
