Young writers, take heart! Even the elite occasionally get stumped by classic spelling errors.
Just yesterday, the New York Times ran a short article about an unusual atmospheric formation at Saturn's north pole: a giant hexagonal cloud.
Cool - if you like gigantic shapes made of hydrogen gas. The last sentence of the Times's article said, "The NASA Cassini spacecraft took a series of similar infrared images between Oct. 30 and Nov. 11, and this pattern, probably a deep wave in the atmosphere, was almost stationery then."
Stationery? That's one big piece of paper.
A couple weeks ago, I spotted another spelling error in the Times. In an article's title, the word "irrelevant" was spelled "irrelevent." Maybe these errors aren't that important, but I was surprised - and amused - to find them.
One time in the York Dispatch, we were told the date was Feiday, the something. I clipped it out - thought it was funny.
The stationary mistake was kind of understandable - spell check wouldn't have gotten it. "Irrelevent," however, should have been caught if they would have just used it.
It makes you wonder if they put the same effort into assuring the accuracy of the information they're writing.