Be Excellent To Each Other

They can be funny, but unfortunately 90% of them on that site are fake.

Well, for starters, there aren't any rude words in the iPhone autocorrect dictionary. The ones that are believable are the ones where it's a pronoun or something that's wrong, which makes it rude.

Well, for starters, there aren't any rude words in the iPhone autocorrect dictionary. The ones that are believable are the ones where it's a pronoun or something that's wrong, which makes it rude.

Yeah, but if you add a load of swear words to the autocorrect dictionary manually, you're a dumb fuck.

It's obviously full of fakes. Quite apart from the obvious dictionary things, there are so many stilted, unnatural conversations in there, and they're always so well self-contained. No two random texts would be that comprehensible out of context.

Cute idea though.

My phone has just about every swear word in the world in its dictionary, all your basics plus a lot of 'custom swears' such as cuntbubble, titface, fuckrag etc.

I don't want to have to teach it the word 'motherfucker' every time I need to use it.

It's still not proof though, man.

There are hundreds of millions of English language speakers sending billions of texts per day - it's a big world, y'know? I've done a bit of Googling on the site, and apart from people saying 'well it's obviously fake', there's really no proof.

OK - if you add them in and then are surprised when it starts suggesting sex acts to your mother, you're a dumb fuck

And all of them read one website? Come on. It's not the rarity - it's the setup. It just reeks of deliberate writing. Some of them are still very good, yeah, but a lot of them fall flat for it.

Ergo, even if it was 100% genuine at first, it's mostly (or entirely) fakes today.

I used to do something called "IRC Llama of the day" on one of the websites I used to run, and it would be me picking up on things like that in IRC (as well as innuendo and stuff like in beex week). We allowed people to submit their own entries (I and others would vet them) and it became increasingly apparent that people were deliberatly saying stuff to get on that, and that was a small website covering a small sector (people who played quake 3 online and used about one of a dozen or so channels on quakenet) of a niche game. So, I would also expect a large portion of that website to be faked.

Malc

Stolen from elsewhere...

One of my clients had an interesting Freudian slip the other day. He was having dinner with his wife and he meant to say 'Pass the salt,' but instead he said 'You've ruined my life, you blood-sucking shrew.'

My best ever auto-correct had my phone turn my attempt at typing Manchester into ‘man homosexual’. I can't even remotely reproduce that wonderful little mistake.

I take your point, but it's still just speculation, innit?

Out of hundreds of millions of texters per day, how many need to be aware of a website like that to make it viable?

A lovely lady recently told me she had a lust for me... turned out she meant a "list"

I also have spent some time 'thinking about my lust' for Goddess Jasmine, and have told Kalmar all about my long lust for him.

I also have a lust of wool for a knitting friend.

If I type LOST, however, it comes out as LIST.

My worst mistake was when I typed FAGWAD when trying to say FATHER.

Actually, no, there was once one worse than that, but I am actually too embarassed to type it.

I also have spent some time 'thinking about my lust' for Goddess Jasmine

Wet goof.

That's the final nail in your coffin of credibility there.

I like the way that the daily mail has picked some of the more likely fake ones.

I'm still upset that the best genuine autocorrect error I've ever seen in the wild was edited out. Mind you, given the mood and accusations around here recently, it is probably a good thing.

Well it's more 'mainstream evidence' than any of the 'IT'S A FAKE' crowd have managed.

You're a Bruno cretinous move.

My best ever auto-correct had my phone turn my attempt at typing Manchester into ‘man homosexual’. I can't even remotely reproduce that wonderful little mistake.

Of course, I didn't send it, because I'm not a moron.

And after that, Miss Malabar's attempt at writing Manchester came out as ‘man heterosexual’. Awesome.

Conclusive proof that damnyouautocorrect is 100% genuine and true.

For a man who's so keen on his evidence Doc, I still ain't seen you come up with any for damnyouautocorrect being fake.

http://damnyouautocorrect.com/10785/dam ... questions/

Q: That entry is totally fake. It doesn’t autocorrect to that on my phone!

A: Autocorrect behaves differently on everyone’s phone, and it “learns” words based on things you have typed in the past. If you can’t reproduce it on your phone after numerous tries, it doesn’t mean it is fake. It just means you have too much time on your hands.

Q: But the keystrokes aren’t even near each other! It’s fake!

A: Proximity of the keys has absolutely nothing to do with how Autocorrect works. It’s based on a complex formula of algorithms and keystrokes, and it was created by elves who work tirelessly day and night in their treehouses in an effort to embarrass you by having your phone insert the word “penis” into as many conversations as possible. Sometimes you meant to write penis. Often times, you didn’t. But that’s not the point. The point is: Less analyzing. More laughing. And leave the “FAKE” comments where they belong – in the comments section under reblogged photos of Pam Anderson’s boobs.

I'm not sure that the FAQ On the same website is conclusive independent evidence either ;-)

Doubtless some are true. But quite a few just don't work contextually for the 'intended' statement and appear to be pure comedy crowbars.

There's no conclusive proof it's true either, unless you believe their own FAQ or the Daily Mail, apparently.