B/c it shouldn't be in Nilly's post - a co-worker just came up to me and basically said "you! do this now!"

1) FU
2) I don't work for you, and please or courtesy go a long way, FU.
3) When I do start letting you know what is what DO NOT F'in QUESTION ME ON MY ANSWERS YOU F'in MFer.

ps - if you had an ounce of intuitiveness you would know that I am about half a twitch away from cutting someone, now it's a good chance that soemone will be you.

Goodness, I miss posting with you guys so much!

But first, I'll exploit the hivemind: I get every spell-checker I use shout at me regarding sentences like these:

The deep and comprehensive description of that topology as well as its effect on the netwrok's properties makes it possible to blahblahblah

We showed that a dramatic improvement in the search's efficiency was achieved even for blahblahblah

Um, not because of the blahblahblah, of course (which transforms into actual, y'know, words, in the actual sentences), but because of the "'s". What's wrong with how I used it, and what's the proper way to write these sentences?

Ta, ever so!

[I'm confined lately to working from my computer at home, which is too old and weak to handle more than one window open at a time, and even then it sometimes needs coffee-breaks and naps - for itself, not for me, and not of the COMM kind, alas), so I can't open the b.org window as well as whatever I have to work on at the time. Goodness, I miss it so.]

[Edit: cereal! cereal! D'you know how long it's been since I posted a breakfast food?]

a co-worker just came up to me and basically said "you! do this now!"

I'm sorry, but I have a deep urge to come to said co-worker and say "You! Do NOT do *this* EVER!".

(Um, yeah, with the asterisks and the capital letters. That's how much s/he shouldn't have spoken this way.)

Those look fine to me. Maybe the checker doesn't think of "search" as a noun? Rephrasing to "the efficiency of the search" makes it more formal, but I wouldn't say it makes it more correct.

They are disassembling the cubicles around us. I take it to mean we're about to move back to our own building, but it's very disconcerting to see light appearing where there was none before.

Nilly defending me has made me completely verklempt.

The deep and comprehensive description of that topology as well as its effect on the netwrok's properties makes it possible to blahblahblah

I get similar chastising by spellcheck for perfectly fine sentences. Spellcheck, like many human spellers, sometimes can't figure out what the subject of the sentence is. In this case, I think the "deep and comprehensive" makes its tiny mind think the subject is plural.

Thanks, Jesse! I'll leave it, then, because there are already many edits as it is, and I think the typos are more urgent than the not-really-mistakes.

(I understand how "search" may be easily interpreted as a verb, but is "network" so much a verb now that it doesn't get to be nounified anymore? Poor thing.)

[Um, this is for my dissertation. I got the comments from the referees. I got them on the day-before-yesterday. Oh, and if I wanna manage to get my degree at this year's ceremony, I have to hand in the already-corrected version by tomorrow. So I'm back at my old computer at the university, and, yes, it took me two nights to remember that this is the computer that can deal with more than 1.7 windows open at once, I don't have any defense regarding my absent-mindedness.]

[Edit: Thanks, Ginger! Oh, I got compliments on the abstract you and Kat (and P-C, IIRC) helped me polish. It's totally thanks to you!]

[One last Edit to wave at msbelle]

[No, one really last Edit, because I have to mock myself for editing my posts so much while trying to edit other manuscripts. Apparently, there's editing in the air, or in the electrons, or something.]

Hee. Nilly is cute.

netwrok's

Maybe this is tripping it up? It should probably be "network's". Otherwise, it looks fine to me. Actually, "netwrok's" might be fine, too. I'm on a lot of cold meds right now.