Hyundaitech please copy.

Here's what happened with the Innova code reader that I bought
last week. It's on sale right now at Kragen and affiliated stores
for $100 (USD) after the rebate.

I opened the package and read the documentation last night. Three
separate books are provided, one each in English, Spanish, and
French. The manufacturer isn't a cheapskate: three AAA batteries
are packed with the unit, they're not cheapo batteries but are
instead alkalines of a brand that I recognize.

The documentation is especially good. The history and reasoning
behind the OBD II (On Board Diagnostics, 2nd generation) system
is explained in everyday language. The test procedure is
described quite well. The documentation is exceptionally good --
it's almost a model of how manuals should be written and edited.
My only complaint is that apostrophes are misused for plurals of
acronyms -- a growing trend that I dislike because it confuses
readers. A multi-page table of universal codes and their
explanatins are presented. Additional proprietary code sets are
provided for five popular makes of autos -- Hyundai isn't one of
them. The proprietary Ford codes are very extensive; the Toyota
list is very short. Among the Ford codes, I spotted very simple
matters that are easily nailed with old-time instruments, or just
his eyeballs, by any mechanic with half a brain.

A short backgrounder:
Today's cars employ sophisticated diagnostic systems that monitor
performance of a number of emissions and "runability" components
and sytems. Since 1996, the US Government requires that all cars
must share standard code reader hookups and code designations.
This standardization allows the use of a single code reader with
any auto sold in the United States today. Professional "Scan
Tools" work the same way, but are more sophisticated -- these
instruments are too expensive for the home user.

The vehicle's computer constantly monitors these devices and
makes adjustments that ensure the best efficiency and cleanest
output from the tailpipe under the changing conditions of any
road trip. When one of these systems does not perform according
to specifications, a trouble code is generated by the computer
and stored for retrieval. The seriousness of a trouble condition
is evaluated by the computer and action is taken, sometimes
immediately, sometimes after a few repetitions of the event. If
attention is warranted, the computer lights the "check engine"
lamp, either steady or flashing.

The code reader connects under the dashboard via a cable to a
mating socket. Pressing a button on the reader instructs the
car's computer to download any stored malfunction codes; these
codes are presented on the screen of the code reader in about
five seconds.

The Innova Owner's Manual explains the different states of code
storage, and what the various screen indications mean. Individual
systems are tested by the car's computer; each system is tested
using its own special program -- a routine that may require the
car to be driven either casually, or in a specific way, in order
to store the results in the computer for evaluation. Each of
these routines is named a "monitor." All monitors on a given
vehicle are polled by the code reader; all results are displayed,
regardless of the seriousness -- and the seriousness also
registers on the screen. For example, a glitch that's not
critical may be stored in a state named "pending" -- that is,
pending repetition of the stimuli to see if the malfunction will
happen again. If there are more than one stored code, the user
can scroll through the results. A "pending" code won't trigger
the "check engine" light, but it'll be shown on the code reader's
screen.

I searched for my 2000 Sonata's socket for about two minutes
before finding it exactly where Hyundaitech said it was. The
socket is straight vertical, just to the right of the steering
column, just behind the bottom edge of the dashboard. It took a
bit of work to get the plug aligned correctly with the socket.
Once connected, I had the report on my car in less than a minute.
The result was "zero," which confirmed that the car that I bought
two weeks ago is free of troubles in these major systems -- it
should therefore pass a smog test with flying colors, as it did
three months ago.

All monitors that have reported were indicated with solid
characters. But two of these characters were blinking, indicating
that their corresponding test data was missing in the car's
computer. The word "done" was missing from the reader's screen,
showing that all available monitors had non been accounted for.

**** Here's where I'd like Hyundaitech to comment:
Two of the monitors were not run (the blinking ones). These were
the Catalyst Monitor ("C") and the Oxygen Sensor Monitor ("O").
What do I need to do to run the tests in order to obtain the data
that the computer needs to report on these two components? Also,
if they're on the Hundai technical web site, how do I find the
information?

If any of you are interested in buying this device and live near
a Kragen, Schucks, or Checker store, the sale is on, I think,
until March 26th. It may also be available on their web site -- I
don't know. Note that there's a different, smaller code reader on
sale at the same time for less money. I can't comment on it; I've
already had experience with an earlier Innova (Equus) code
reader, and it was a winner.

Could the documentation be better? Of course. It's a little
confusing, but most things should come clear in a few
read-throughs. However, the book is so vastly better than the
instructions with most products that Innova deserves special
commendation for doing such a user-centric job. The four buttons
on the reader make a cheap, ratty sound when you release them. No
matter -- I like this gizmo.

Thanks, Hyundaitech.

Richard

 

Basically, the fact that the monitors haven't run means that the computer
was cleared relatively recently and the computer hasn't finished running
the tests. What's necessary to get them to run is to drive the vehicle.
The catalyst and O2 monitors typically are among those requiring the
longest drive time.

In my location, many emissions tests are done just by plugging in a tool
similar to yours and checking to see if the monitors have run and that
there are no codes. I had a customer who drove her vehicle such short
distances that I had to test drive the car home and back overnight for the
monitors to run so she could pass her emissions test.

Oh, and btw, I also really hate the fact that so many people don't seem to
know the difference between plural and possessive. It's everywhere.

 

"hyundaitech" <notpublic@not.public.com> wrote in message
news:a1017dee6377dce010a2dbb209f1122f@localhost.ta lkaboutautos.com...
| Basically, the fact that the monitors haven't run means that
the computer
| was cleared relatively recently and the computer hasn't
finished running
| the tests. What's necessary to get them to run is to drive the
vehicle.
| The catalyst and O2 monitors typically are among those
requiring the
| longest drive time.
|
| In my location, many emissions tests are done just by plugging
in a tool
| similar to yours and checking to see if the monitors have run
and that
| there are no codes. I had a customer who drove her vehicle
such short
| distances that I had to test drive the car home and back
overnight for the
| monitors to run so she could pass her emissions test.
|

This is what puzzled me. This past Monday, I drove a fairly long
distance, much of it along a winding coastal California road,
some of it on freeway, and some on city streets -- with a handful
of stops along the way. My driving the following two days was
mixed, but mostly freeway, with the code reader download the
morning after. So, I'm a bit confused. From Innova's
instructions, I got the impression, as you said, that a bit of
driving was required in order to run these monitors. So, what I'm
thinking now is that a few short hops can erase a prior data set
from a long run -- in other words, new data will push old data
out of the buffers. Otherwise, I don't understand why I was
missing these two monitors.

Since this is a public forum, I've been explaining a bit --
sharing my process with this gizmo for others to follow. If there
are no objections, I'll be happy to keep it up.

One of my motives is this: with the recent advances in
computerized engine controls, older mechanical knowledge has got
to be enhanced with knowledge of the new systems, as well as
diagnostic methods. That's been a lot for mechanics to chew on,
despite all the self-diagnosis. We've got a whole bunch of new
terms, and unfortunately, many of these terms are a long stretch
when it comes to the sensibility of the names. (I recall "Key On
Engine Off: KOEO." But why isn't KOEO "Key Off Engine On?"
Better would be something like "Power Up Engine Running/Power Up
Engine Stopped." I'm into very clear technical terminology --
terminology that eliminates potential confusion.

With this technical revolution has come a new problem for the
consumer: the driver is helpless if there's a road breakdown, and
sometimes at the mercy of a preditory mechanic far from home.
Being able to read one's own codes on-the-fly gives the customer
important knowledge is such a situation.

| Oh, and btw, I also really hate the fact that so many people
don't seem to
| know the difference between plural and possessive. It's
everywhere.
|

I know. I like clear writing. Plural/possessive confusion with
apostrophes muddies things up, like the use of "insure" for
"ensure." I really appreciate good technical writing -- it can
be a pleasure to read.

Richard

 

Well, I'm not really sure why the monitors haven't run, then. Perhaps it's
a difficulty with the tool reading the monitor on your specific car, but I
doubt it. I wouldn't worry much about it, either. If you've recently
passed emissions and the check engine lamp is not on, there can't be much
wrong. What sort of emissions test did they do on your vehicle? Was it
tailpipe, treadmill, or OBD-II (read codes and monitors)?

I definitely agree about the knowledge. There are many people who don't
understand anything more than the fact their car is broken and the price
to repair it. As a result, conclusions as to rip-offs, etc. get made
solely on the basis of price. At least with a little knowledge, you can
probably tell whether someone is handing you a line of b.s. to separate
you from your money.

Oh, and if you ever find any of that good technical writing, let me know.
There's no way it can't be better than the ridiculous things I read every
day.

 

Richard,

One of my pet peeves is the misuse of the work "breaks" as it pertains to
car brakes. It is one of the worst on USENET---

Ferdy


"Richard Steinfeld" <rgsteinBUTREMOVETHIS@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:113mi45450ej47b@corp.supernews.com...
> "hyundaitech" <notpublic@not.public.com> wrote in message
> news:a1017dee6377dce010a2dbb209f1122f@localhost.ta lkaboutautos.com...
> | Basically, the fact that the monitors haven't run means that
> the computer
> | was cleared relatively recently and the computer hasn't
> finished running
> | the tests. What's necessary to get them to run is to drive the
> vehicle.
> | The catalyst and O2 monitors typically are among those
> requiring the
> | longest drive time.
> |
> | In my location, many emissions tests are done just by plugging
> in a tool
> | similar to yours and checking to see if the monitors have run
> and that
> | there are no codes. I had a customer who drove her vehicle
> such short
> | distances that I had to test drive the car home and back
> overnight for the
> | monitors to run so she could pass her emissions test.
> |
>
> This is what puzzled me. This past Monday, I drove a fairly long
> distance, much of it along a winding coastal California road,
> some of it on freeway, and some on city streets -- with a handful
> of stops along the way. My driving the following two days was
> mixed, but mostly freeway, with the code reader download the
> morning after. So, I'm a bit confused. From Innova's
> instructions, I got the impression, as you said, that a bit of
> driving was required in order to run these monitors. So, what I'm
> thinking now is that a few short hops can erase a prior data set
> from a long run -- in other words, new data will push old data
> out of the buffers. Otherwise, I don't understand why I was
> missing these two monitors.
>
> Since this is a public forum, I've been explaining a bit --
> sharing my process with this gizmo for others to follow. If there
> are no objections, I'll be happy to keep it up.
>
> One of my motives is this: with the recent advances in
> computerized engine controls, older mechanical knowledge has got
> to be enhanced with knowledge of the new systems, as well as
> diagnostic methods. That's been a lot for mechanics to chew on,
> despite all the self-diagnosis. We've got a whole bunch of new
> terms, and unfortunately, many of these terms are a long stretch
> when it comes to the sensibility of the names. (I recall "Key On
> Engine Off: KOEO." But why isn't KOEO "Key Off Engine On?"
> Better would be something like "Power Up Engine Running/Power Up
> Engine Stopped." I'm into very clear technical terminology --
> terminology that eliminates potential confusion.
>
> With this technical revolution has come a new problem for the
> consumer: the driver is helpless if there's a road breakdown, and
> sometimes at the mercy of a preditory mechanic far from home.
> Being able to read one's own codes on-the-fly gives the customer
> important knowledge is such a situation.
>
> | Oh, and btw, I also really hate the fact that so many people
> don't seem to
> | know the difference between plural and possessive. It's
> everywhere.
> |
>
> I know. I like clear writing. Plural/possessive confusion with
> apostrophes muddies things up, like the use of "insure" for
> "ensure." I really appreciate good technical writing -- it can
> be a pleasure to read.
>
> Richard
>

 

"Ferdy" <fredjr1@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:moN_d.38909$c72.2875@bignews3.bellsouth.net.. .
| Richard,
|
| One of my pet peeves is the misuse of the work "breaks" as it
pertains to
| car brakes. It is one of the worst on USENET---
|

Chill out, Ferd; they could spell it "break's" (and I'll bet they
do).

Richard

 

"hyundaitech" <notpublic@not.public.com> wrote in message
news:b843c615a1890700def1e32792f43507@localhost.ta lkaboutautos.com...
| Well, I'm not really sure why the monitors haven't run, then.
Perhaps it's
| a difficulty with the tool reading the monitor on your specific
car, but I
| doubt it. I wouldn't worry much about it, either.

But the issue is that I want to read all the emissions codes
because one of the reasons that I bought the reader is to be
prepared for a smog test in advance. And also, of course, to keep
the car tuned up. So, It's important to me to have perfect
readout of all monitors. The present situation is bothering me.

I re-connected the reader this afternoon, and got the same result
as yesterday -- no report on the catalytic converter and the
oxygen sensor. So, I went out this evening and left the reader
connected -- it retrieved codes every 15 seconds during a
25-minute drive, a 10-minute drive, and the last one, 12 minutes.
No change.

If you've recently
| passed emissions and the check engine lamp is not on, there
can't be much
| wrong. What sort of emissions test did they do on your
vehicle? Was it
| tailpipe, treadmill, or OBD-II (read codes and monitors)?
|

Good questions. I bought the car 2.5 weeks ago. California
requires that the car be smogged upon title transfer -- three
months prior test is fine. The car flunked a smog test, was
repaired, and then passed -- all in December. I do not know what
work was done.

Around the same time, the seller took the car for an oil change
at a franchised tuneup shop. It's the only receipt that I have
for the vehicle. The slip says that he was charged $25 to reset
the "check engine" light. So, I assume that all stored codes were
cleared at that time, too.

I'm fairly certain that the smog test was run with a
dynomometer -- folks in the Central Valley have been screaming
bloody murder that they have to breathe all our smog, which blows
to them over the mountains. Thus, about two years ago, the
treadmill test was added for the SF Bay Area.

I'll assume that the test station also reads the OBD II monitors
and codes -- after all, if you wanted to ensure that your air was
as free of junk as you could make it, and that people didn't game
the smog test (as a mechanic, you know about that, right?) you'd
want to do this, too, because you might nab some lurking
problems. I don't know this for a fact, however. So far, I've
been pretty impressed with the Air Resources people, but the
whole thing can be a pain. Still, we've all got to breathe, and
we've got a lot of folks with asthma right around here -- near a
couple of refineries and belching diesels on the freeways and
also at the transcontinental railroad terminals; it's the tsunami
of goodies from China coming to enrich our lives.

| I definitely agree about the knowledge. There are many people
who don't
| understand anything more than the fact their car is broken and
the price
| to repair it. As a result, conclusions as to rip-offs, etc.
get made
| solely on the basis of price. At least with a little
knowledge, you can
| probably tell whether someone is handing you a line of b.s. to
separate
| you from your money.
|

Yes; I direct the reader's attention to the line above where I
said that a person was charged $25 to reset his "check engine"
light. That's a 2-minute task with the code reader that I just
bought. The scenario that I presented earlier on this board in
which the driver pulls into a small town, his car a'knockin' and
a'belchin,' nervous and desperate for a repair, and gets hustled
with what I'll call the "We'll have to connect your car to the
computer" gambit. "That'll be ninety-five dollars for the
hookup -- it's very complicated." And, "We won't be able to
connect it until Friday -- we're real busy, backed up you know."
And, "You can stay at Ed's Motel down the street until I can get
to your car."

I presented this scenario to my friend yesterday, and he replied,
"That's it! That's exactly what happened to me in Lone Pine! We
didn't get out of there for three days." There's a lot of really
fine mechanics out there. But there are those rascals, too.

| Oh, and if you ever find any of that good technical writing,
let me know.
| There's no way it can't be better than the ridiculous things I
read every
| day.

Yes, I know. Most of the automotive stuff is really awful
regardless of where it comes from. A long time ago, I was really
inspired by the house writing style of Eastman Kodak. I don't
know if they've retained it, but it ran throughout almost all of
their publications. Their materials were incredible. Once you see
good technical documentation, the usual stuff will have you
screaming and cursing a whole lot, because then you'll know how
beneficial it can really be and how the stuff you've been
suffering with has been messing up your life.

There are a number of reasons why most technical documentation is
poor. I won't go into them all right now; this would get rather
long. But let's just say that there are some people who could do
a much better job at empathizing with the guy who has to use the
stuff. Writing isn't adequately budgeted; writers are brought
onto projects way, way too late by managers. The writers aren't
allowed the time that it takes to get to know the product, yet
they have to describe it! Product managers just want to shove
the product out the door -- which is understandable because it's
probably barely on deadline. Documentation is often regarded as a
pain in the neck. The wrong writers are hired -- many tech
writers don't have a good feel for what they're documenting. I
think that it's very important for the writer to be able to put
himself in the user's shoes and write completely from that space.
Unfortunately, it's mostly the opposite: the writing is done
top-down, from the viewpoint of the engineer. There's no doubt of
one thing: good documentation costs money. And it's worth it.

That engineer designs the oil pan, but he does not know what it's
like to be lying underneath a car with oil dripping into your
eyes, trying to feel with your one free oily hand whether the
wrench is a 15/64 inch or a 192/256 inch. And that's assuming
that you've guessed the size of that damn bolt correctly! And
neither does the writer! And the writer got his information from
that engineer. I'll stop here, OK?

If there's something I need to know about running these two
nagging tests, please let me know. For example, is it neccessary
for the car to be run at a sustained speed for a given period of
time?
I'll check in with Innova on Monday about the code reader and
report back.

Good chatting with you.

Richard

 

Richard Steinfeld wrote:
> "hyundaitech" <notpublic@not.public.com> wrote in message
> news:a1017dee6377dce010a2dbb209f1122f@localhost.ta lkaboutautos.com...

> | Oh, and btw, I also really hate the fact that so many people
> don't seem to
> | know the difference between plural and possessive. It's
> everywhere.
> |
>
> I know. I like clear writing. Plural/possessive confusion with
> apostrophes muddies things up, like the use of "insure" for
> "ensure." I really appreciate good technical writing -- it can
> be a pleasure to read.

The difference between plural and possessive forms isn't always clear.
Words that don't have a specific plural form are supposed to be written
with an apostrophe between the word and the added "s" at the end, which
makes it look like a possessive form. Names are a good example of this.
Is the plural of "Hyundai" supposed to be "Hyundais" or "Hyundai's"?
Either could be correct, but I'll bet it's the latter.

 

As far as improper English goes, my all-time favourite from a national
Canadian newspaper ad was in a car's description: fan fare here please
.........how about 'radio tires'!
BCin BC
"Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@att.net> wrote in message
news:7fV_d.417192$w62.46129@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Richard Steinfeld wrote:
>> "hyundaitech" <notpublic@not.public.com> wrote in message
>> news:a1017dee6377dce010a2dbb209f1122f@localhost.ta lkaboutautos.com...
>
>> | Oh, and btw, I also really hate the fact that so many people
>> don't seem to
>> | know the difference between plural and possessive. It's
>> everywhere.
>> |
>>
>> I know. I like clear writing. Plural/possessive confusion with
>> apostrophes muddies things up, like the use of "insure" for
>> "ensure." I really appreciate good technical writing -- it can
>> be a pleasure to read.
>
> The difference between plural and possessive forms isn't always clear.
> Words that don't have a specific plural form are supposed to be written
> with an apostrophe between the word and the added "s" at the end, which
> makes it look like a possessive form. Names are a good example of this. Is
> the plural of "Hyundai" supposed to be "Hyundais" or "Hyundai's"? Either
> could be correct, but I'll bet it's the latter.

 

B Crawford wrote:
> As far as improper English goes, my all-time favourite from a national
> Canadian newspaper ad was in a car's description: fan fare here please
> ........how about 'radio tires'!


This from a labor contract negotiation at our company:

Shop Steward, pounding fist on table:
"We demand the hourly rate increase specified,
and we want it made radioactive!"

Jim

 

"Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@att.net> wrote in message
news:7fV_d.417192$w62.46129@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
|
| The difference between plural and possessive forms isn't always
clear.
| Words that don't have a specific plural form are supposed to be
written
| with an apostrophe between the word and the added "s" at the
end, which
| makes it look like a possessive form. Names are a good example
of this.
| Is the plural of "Hyundai" supposed to be "Hyundais" or
"Hyundai's"?
| Either could be correct, but I'll bet it's the latter.

Beg pardon, but I don't agree with the "supposed to be" part of
this. I say that it's wrong, and it's the writer's and editor's
job to use their craft in order to avoid the confusion.

"Hyundai's bumper:" correct.
"A bunch of Hyundai's:" wrong, wrong, wrong.

This is the second time in which I've recently found a person
claiming that this butchery is correct!
What is happening to us?

Go here:
http://www.angryflower.com/aposter.html

Here:
http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/

Try this:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/J_fersOffice/sample.htm

Many people have been apostrophizing acronyms for plurals. It's
the lazy way out. Look at this:
Plural of ATM: "ATM's"
How about "ATMs?"
Which one is clear? Which is confusing?

This awful transgression had inflicted the railroad publishing
industry -- the cause was a locomotive on the Pennsylvania
Railriad that was named the "K4s." In order to be able to deal
with this, the editor of Trains Magazine decided to twist the
entire English language instead. Plural became "K4s's," However,
professional consistency dictated that other locomotives were now
"Alco's."

Applying a bit of work to this solves the problem:
Instead of "K4s's" (or "K4s'"), we can write, "The K4s engine
class," or "A group of K4s locomotives."
With acronyms, clearing this up is surprisingly easy, because all
we have to do is to write the acronym itself in upper case (which
is normal) and then put the trailing pluralization in lower case
like this: ATMs.

A good writer and a good editor should always work for clarity
and eliminate obfuscation -- that is, unless we're writing
mystery novels.

Clear now?
I rest my case.

Richard

 

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:21:25 -0800, "Richard Steinfeld"
<rgsteinBUTREMOVETHIS@sonic.net> wrote:

> <snip>
>"Hyundai's bumper:" correct.
>"A bunch of Hyundai's:" wrong, wrong, wrong.
>
>This is the second time in which I've recently found a person
>claiming that this butchery is correct!
>What is happening to us?
> <snip>
>Richard
>===============================

Easy Richard - don't loose <snicker> your cool.

S25

 

I recall learing (in High School English, I believe) that acronyms were the
only allowable (but not required) use of the apostrophe to indicate
plurals. The purpose was to make a separation from the acronym and the
letter "s," making it clear that the s was not part of the acronym. I
still favor the capital acronym - lower case s, though.

 

hyundaitech wrote:

> I recall learing (in High School English, I believe) that acronyms were the
> only allowable (but not required) use of the apostrophe to indicate
> plurals. The purpose was to make a separation from the acronym and the
> letter "s," making it clear that the s was not part of the acronym. I
> still favor the capital acronym - lower case s, though.
>

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

Jim

 

"hyundaitech" <notpublic@not.public.com> wrote in message
news:057e0c17a5942f2389ceb65877ff9a90@localhost.ta lkaboutautos.com...
| I recall learing (in High School English, I believe) that
acronyms were the
| only allowable (but not required) use of the apostrophe to
indicate
| plurals. The purpose was to make a separation from the acronym
and the
| letter "s," making it clear that the s was not part of the
acronym. I
| still favor the capital acronym - lower case s, though.
|

The interpretation that you mentioned makes some sense, but it
reinforces the practice of tossing in an apostrophe when you
don't know what else to do. And this dilutes the meaning of the
punctuation. The guiding principle for my own writing is that
when in doubt, I always aim for clarity. And when it comes to
ambiguity, "head 'em off at the pass." In other words, shape the
writing to ensure that ambiguity has been sucked out of the text.

Whenever we use the apostrophe to pluralize a word, we put
confusion into the reader's mind, and make the reader search the
rest of the sentence or paragraph for the context in order to
clarify the meaning. I believe that it's the job of the technical
writer to deliver clear descriptions and clear instructions to
the end user.

Technical writing is the opposite of fiction -- fiction is an
art, in which we (hopefully) encourage the readers to make
connections within their own minds -- ambiguity can be a
wonderful part of this process. And ambiguity is often an
essential part of comedy -- where the comic spins a yarn
involving a word, and suddenly changes the word's context, and
therefore its meaning, to create the punch line.

Technical writing is a craft, a craft in which the writer can be
an artful practitioner. You know when you read good technical
writing because you get a picture of the job at hand while
reading it -- that sense of "I've got it!" Have I been clear
about this?

Another misuse of punctuation that's become rampant is quotes to
set off something and make it important. You'll find this one
most often in the supermarket, as in "Peaches" 39 cents.
There's a vague history regarding this vagueness -- I recall the
logo of The Delaware and Hudson, an American railroad, which
signed itself "The D&H", probably from before 1900. The reason is
lost in the fog of antiquity, where it probably made as much
sense as it does now. Imagine if the badge on the back of the
car, instead of saying Hyundai, said "Hyundai". It seems absurd,
but that's what some people do when making their signs. You may
notice that I've intentionally omitted some proper punctuation
and changed the usual order of it, to be clear about punctuation
itself. Like I said, there's an art to this craft.

Here's an entertaining book by Lynn Truss about punctuation.
http://eatsshootsandleaves.com/
I've heard the lady on the radio and I found what she had to say
very interesting. She's from England, of course; when conversing
with people on the internet, I've noticed that the misuse of the
apostrophe is quite rampant in the UK. The book has a forward by
Frank McCourt, whose American Irish English may be worth the
price of the book all by itself.

Here's a page about ensure, insure, and assure.
http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/inde...?date=19960916

I'll repeat the apostrophe web site addresses again:
http://www.angryflower.com/aposter.html
http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/
http://www.users.bigpond.com/J_fersOffice/sample.htm

Richard