At first, thanks to Anatol and Conway for pointing out where to find the manuals.
Oh well, it took me almost three hours to read all of this text. O_O (Ok, I don't know exactly, I didn't read it nonstop, but I think that's almost impossible.)
And BION, I even learned some new things about LemEdit reading this.
Reading your review @ccexplore was fairly amusing I have to say.
But I have to agree to most of the points though.
The first part of 2.1 seems a little condescending, especially the parts you quoted, and now that I read it completely I have to agree, in this case it might be not only caused by the bad English, but I'm actually not sure about whether it is really meant to be, I doubt it; another reason I'd call is in the next few sentences, namely, the third sentence following. (This is a 'non-logical jump'
Sorry Toma A;, if you're reading this.)
Another thing is "Maybe it sounds funny, but is not." I somehow imagine he read the prevoius sentences and had to laugh himself about what he wrote because all of this was so obviously clear.
I think the main problem was that he wanted to make it understandable for absolutely everyone, but I think he should have at least assumed that the user had played Lemmings at least a bit before using the editor and hence knows that exit and entrance are required. He should at least have stated that as known fact (e.g. "[...] as you should know" ), but the "Maybe it sounds funny, but is not." supposes that he assumes there'd also be people out there not knowing that.
At that aspect, the other sections are not that bad. Apart from that, section 2.1 is also the most chaotic IMO. Toma A; should have made either a "How to get started" or an explaination of the workbench out of it, but making an explaination with some throw-ins of a 'how-to' referring to other sections (the numbers 2.4 and 2.5, in the survey 2.5 and 2.6 appear twice btw) is certainly not the best way.
Reading "This was a short description of all workbench functions." simply made me laugh. I mean, considering this as short? "If You do not agree with the word "short", [...]" - it almost has something sarcastic in it: "If you do not agree with short, than have a look at the rest I prepared for you to read...". In the actual ending of that sentence is admitted, that there's a lot of other things in the text, showing that it is quite badly organized.
As I said, I think the whole text was meant to be understandable for everyone, hence the long and repetitive explainations were written. But exactly because of these, and I think the lenghs are also caused by the bad English, it became hard to understand (not to mention the occasional deviations, especially the one about "good and bad levels and how they supposedly reflect the intelligence of the level designer", as ccexplore called it), and so these explaination caused the opposite to what they were supposed to cause.
For the introduction, especially 1.3 shows that this manual even suits to users who haven't played Lemmings at all until then. Apart from this, 1.3 would fit very well an introduction for the Lemmings game itself, and it shows that Toma A; really seems to love lemmings. The following introduction (1.4) is quite informative, mainly the first part, and seems to be meant to show that Toma A; did a hard work making LemEdit, which I think he did.
And the troubleshooting section is ok I think.
Overall, now that I have read this, the manual is the polar opposite to the program: Whereas the program is very easy to handle (except the mouse problem and a very few other things) and mainly self-explainatory, the manual is fairly complicated (mainly the important section, 2.), but if you need help with LemEdit, it will eventually provide you the answer, after you had worked yourself through the manual and finally found where to look for the answer.
Compared to Conway's explaination, it gives you more detailled answers and exact and complete (although complicated) information about the program, but if you want to start I'd definately recommend Conway's description, it gives you all information you need to know to edit levels. If Conway's manual doesn't provide the information you need, you'll have to switch back to Toma A;' one, but you should beware if you're unnerved.
I have to say again, sorry @Toma A; if he should ever be reading this. I think I know that the manual wasn't meant to appear like this and took you probably quite some time to write it, but it simply came out wrong.
