Amusingly appropriate typo

[Geoff Bannister]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
 
Carol:
 
> As a copyeditor and sometime proofreader, I'd like to point out that
> even proofreaders sometimes read the intended meaning rather than
> what's actually in print on the proof sheet, especially in long works
> when the eyes and brain are tired at the end of the day. But in a
> short article, especially the first line, there's no excuse. At least
> four people--the reporter, the copyeditor, the typesetter, and the
> proofreader, would have seen that article (unless online editions of
> newspapers bypass some of those steps).

Geoff:
The trouble is that the eye often sees what it expects to see. How 
many of you, like myself, have written an email or a post to an HP 
group, proof-read it three times, hit the SEND button - and then 
spotted a mistake 2 seconds after it clears?

On a different topic which arose from a previous post, I must ask a 
question as a possibly dense UK ex-teacher. I have often seen 
references to "Subject 101". What precisely is a subject with this
 title?