SGleason
Lady in Waiting
Obituary ghoul
Posts: 355
Mar 10, 2005 18:35:24 GMT -4
|
Post by SGleason on Oct 17, 2015 18:02:11 GMT -4
Speaking of baby cheeses, there is a Laughing Cow commercial running which refers to snacking as "eating one after the next." How? Time machine?
And preach it, Mugsy. My local newspaper makes egregious (ha!) errors nearly every day. Before I die I'm going to write my obituary to mention "Any typos in this obit are not my fault."
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 11:27:40 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2015 22:12:35 GMT -4
Omg, a typo in my obit? Great -- another thing to fret about! That has never occurred to me before. (At that point, will there even be writing rules anymore? Or will it officially be a damn free for all?)
|
|
|
Post by chonies on Oct 19, 2015 11:38:13 GMT -4
Here's a line from a recent NY Times column: A girl in India resists threats and bribes to pursue the upper-caste men she says gang-raped her.
In case you were wondering, yes, the girl did pursue her attackers in court. A well-placed "in order" or "and pursued" would have done wonders for clarity.
|
|
sumire
Blueblood
Posts: 1,992
Mar 7, 2005 18:45:40 GMT -4
|
Post by sumire on Oct 19, 2015 19:49:06 GMT -4
A local radio announcer just informed us that on this day in 2003, Mother Teresa was beautified.
It's too bad it was on the radio--I would've liked to have seen her "before" and "after" pictures.
|
|
|
Post by ratscabies on Oct 19, 2015 20:15:42 GMT -4
Somewhere on the web (photography blog, I think) I saw a picture of Mother Theresa at age 18.
She was GORGEOUS. It was a more jarring experience than Bea Arthur's Marines ID photo.
ETA: I tried. I cannot figure how to link the pics. Easy Google search, though.
|
|
|
Post by Spinderella on Oct 24, 2015 2:39:13 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by ratscabies on Oct 24, 2015 10:13:16 GMT -4
Thanks, Spinderella! I bow to your superior linking skillz!
|
|
|
Post by chonies on Oct 24, 2015 11:02:01 GMT -4
I'm skeptical about that 18 year old photo--it has a little beauty mark that aren't in other photos. But lovely lady nonetheless.
My rage-gripe for the day: I was reading an article yesterday and in the abstract someone used the word "purposively." In context, it made sense, but it still felt like window-dressing.
|
|
|
Post by chonies on Oct 25, 2015 10:12:01 GMT -4
Less grammar, but another semantic ambiguity problem: I was reading an interview with Carrie Brownstein and part of the narrative included a story about hiking with one of her two adopted dogs.
Baroo?
I am an animal freak, and I am very much into the don't shop, adopt message. But it wasn't relevant to the story, and also suggested that other people birth their own dogs. I rolled my eyes, sighed heavily and tried to move on through the rest of the interview.
|
|
|
Post by Carolinian on Oct 26, 2015 10:18:41 GMT -4
A reference book in my husband's field was published recently in England, and one of the first copies to come to the US was at our house on Saturday courtesy of a couple of friends. I took a photo of the table of contents and posted it with a "if you are interested in the topic you need this book" message. A friend observed that there was a big typo -a D and L transposed- in a technical word. I checked the OED and it isn't a British/American English thing, it's a genuine misspelling. Oops! I know the author slightly. He will NOT be happy. I sent a note about it to a friend who knows him much better- friend can be the bearer of bad tidings.
|
|