Pet Intellectual Peeves

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

Post Reply
User avatar
econgator
Let's Go Mets!
Posts: 10673
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:32 am

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by econgator »

Paucle wrote:So, question three at this link http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm who's responsible for that? If it's Dan's error and an editor missed it, ouch. If Dan had it right and an editor "fixed" it, OUCH! Either way, it's pretty egregious.
Obviously the editor should of fixed it ...
User avatar
Paucle
Trekardy! Writer
Posts: 3233
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: near Albany NY

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Paucle »

econgator wrote:Obviously the editor should of fixed it ...
rimshot!
Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Vanya »

Paucle wrote:So, question three at this link http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm who's responsible for that? If it's Dan's error and an editor missed it, ouch. If Dan had it right and an editor "fixed" it, OUCH! Either way, it's pretty egregious.
Switching an a for an e is egregious? What about the lack of quotes in "What if LeBron said, Let's make a run at a title?"
Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Vanya »

I'm not familiar with The Daily Beast, so maybe they did this on purpose.

"A recent study found that eating all red meat increases your risk of dying by 13 percent—and up to 20 percent for eating unprocessed meats like hot dogs or bacon."

Um, isn't everyone's risk of dying 100%? :)

Article courtesy of Steven Hanley.
User avatar
Volante
Harbinger of the Doomed Lemur
Posts: 9254
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Volante »

Vanya wrote:I'm not familiar with The Daily Beast, so maybe they did this on purpose.

"A recent study found that eating all red meat increases your risk of dying by 13 percent—and up to 20 percent for eating unprocessed meats like hot dogs or bacon."

Um, isn't everyone's risk of dying 100%? :)

Article courtesy of Steven Hanley.
Ooh, that's a good one. Always one I have to make a snarky comment on if I have a commenting account on a site that uses it. (If it wasn't for all that red meat and booze, I'd be immortal!!)
The best thing that Neil Armstrong ever did, was to let us all imagine we were him.
Latest movies (1-10): Everything Everywhere All at Once (10), Ruby Gillman: Teenage Kraken (6), Black Sunday /1960/ (6), Marcel the Shell with Shoes On (7)
User avatar
jpahk
Jeopardy! TOCer
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:16 am

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by jpahk »

world death rate holding steady at 100 percent
of course, that article was from 1997. maybe it's gone up since then. ;)

the first paragraph of the actual article from the daily beast explains that it's the risk of dying within the 20-year period of the study, not the risk of dying in general, which increases by 13%. it's just the condensed version (probably written by an editor) that makes no sense. this sort of thing is ridiculously common in science articles, i've noticed.
Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Vanya »

jpahk wrote:world death rate holding steady at 100 percent
of course, that article was from 1997. maybe it's gone up since then. ;)

the first paragraph of the actual article from the daily beast explains that it's the risk of dying within the 20-year period of the study, not the risk of dying in general, which increases by 13%. it's just the condensed version (probably written by an editor) that makes no sense. this sort of thing is ridiculously common in science articles, i've noticed.
I don't get that from the first paragraph at all. It says the study was conducted for 20 years. The next sentence repeats the one in the summary. That doesn't mean the risk of dying within a 20 year period was increased. Maybe that's what they meant, but it's not what it says.

ETA: oops, violated my own rule of not reading your posts because of your lack of capitalization.
User avatar
alietr
Site Admin
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by alietr »

The past, present, and future walked into a bar. It was tense.
User avatar
Volante
Harbinger of the Doomed Lemur
Posts: 9254
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Volante »

Vanya wrote:
jpahk wrote:world death rate holding steady at 100 percent
of course, that article was from 1997. maybe it's gone up since then. ;)

the first paragraph of the actual article from the daily beast explains that it's the risk of dying within the 20-year period of the study, not the risk of dying in general, which increases by 13%. it's just the condensed version (probably written by an editor) that makes no sense. this sort of thing is ridiculously common in science articles, i've noticed.
I don't get that from the first paragraph at all. It says the study was conducted for 20 years. The next sentence repeats the one in the summary. That doesn't mean the risk of dying within a 20 year period was increased. Maybe that's what they meant, but it's not what it says.

ETA: oops, violated my own rule of not reading your posts because of your lack of capitalization.
13% greater chance of dying over 20 years still lacks critical context, though.

If I have a 5% chance of dying during those years with no red meat, I have a 6% chance with red meat. Not exactly a deterrent there. 25% goes to 29%. And if I've got an 89% chance of dying over those 20 years...well what the heck? I'm already staring down Death's barrel...assuming my system can actually handle the stuff, bring on the bacon!!
The best thing that Neil Armstrong ever did, was to let us all imagine we were him.
Latest movies (1-10): Everything Everywhere All at Once (10), Ruby Gillman: Teenage Kraken (6), Black Sunday /1960/ (6), Marcel the Shell with Shoes On (7)
User avatar
Volante
Harbinger of the Doomed Lemur
Posts: 9254
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Volante »

alietr wrote:The past, present, and future walked into a bar. It was tense.
That literally caused me pain. :lol:
The best thing that Neil Armstrong ever did, was to let us all imagine we were him.
Latest movies (1-10): Everything Everywhere All at Once (10), Ruby Gillman: Teenage Kraken (6), Black Sunday /1960/ (6), Marcel the Shell with Shoes On (7)
User avatar
trainman
Moderator Extraordinaire
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:27 pm

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by trainman »

Vanya wrote:What about the lack of quotes in "What if LeBron said, Let's make a run at a title?"
Doesn't need quotation marks, being a paraphrase (and a hypothetical one at that) -- akin to, for example, "What if LeBron said we should make a run at a title?"

The comma and the capital letter are basically for clarity.
Onairb
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 621
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:45 am

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Onairb »

Volante wrote:
alietr wrote:The past, present, and future walked/walk/will walk into a bar. It was/is/will be tense.
That literally caused me pain. :lol:
Fixed it for you. :mrgreen:
Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Vanya »

trainman wrote:
Vanya wrote:What about the lack of quotes in "What if LeBron said, Let's make a run at a title?"
Doesn't need quotation marks, being a paraphrase (and a hypothetical one at that) -- akin to, for example, "What if LeBron said we should make a run at a title?"

The comma and the capital letter are basically for clarity.
No, the comma and capital letter are incorrect. Use them and quotes, or don't use them at all.
Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Vanya »

User avatar
waterloo_guy
Valued Contributor
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:50 pm
Location: Waterloo, ON

Re: One other thread to revive: Intellectual pet peeves

Post by waterloo_guy »

Volante wrote:
debramc wrote:People who confuse its/it's or there/their/they're or your/you're, etc. I'm sympathetic with not being able to spell big unusual words, or dyslexia, but for words you probably use multiple times a day, if you know the meaning of what you're saying, can't you match the right word to it??
It makes me loose my mind!

(Seriously, I've seen that flub so often I can't help but think people are doing it intentional now.)
Was it intentional that you wrote "intentional" instead of "intentionally"? :mrgreen:

I'm willing to forgive its/it's to a certain extent because the general pattern would result in both the possesive and the "it is" contraction being "it's", so it's understandable that people might goof up on which is which.
bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: One other thread to revive: Intellectual pet peeves

Post by bpmod »

waterloo_guy wrote:I'm willing to forgive its/it's to a certain extent because the general pattern would result in both the possesive and the "it is" contraction being "it's", so it's understandable that people might goof up on which is which.
What about the possessive 'his'? Just because a possessive ends in an 's' doesn't mean it gets an apostrophe. If one were to believe that all possessive pronouns need to have an apsotrophe and 's', one could say I's (or me's) instead of mine. But I don't think I've seen very many people make that mistake. Even in professional journalism.

Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
User avatar
Volante
Harbinger of the Doomed Lemur
Posts: 9254
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm

Re: One other thread to revive: Intellectual pet peeves

Post by Volante »

waterloo_guy wrote:
Volante wrote:
debramc wrote:People who confuse its/it's or there/their/they're or your/you're, etc. I'm sympathetic with not being able to spell big unusual words, or dyslexia, but for words you probably use multiple times a day, if you know the meaning of what you're saying, can't you match the right word to it??
It makes me loose my mind!

(Seriously, I've seen that flub so often I can't help but think people are doing it intentional now.)
Was it intentional that you wrote "intentional" instead of "intentionally"? :mrgreen:
Wow, blast from the past...

Honestly, I'll bet what happened was my original parenthetical phrase was grammatically correct, but I didn't like the wording, rephrased it, and just forgot to fix the rest of it to account for the changes. I do that so often, (and end up being called out on it so often...), you would think I'd remember to look for collateral damage by now...but you'd be wrong!!
The best thing that Neil Armstrong ever did, was to let us all imagine we were him.
Latest movies (1-10): Everything Everywhere All at Once (10), Ruby Gillman: Teenage Kraken (6), Black Sunday /1960/ (6), Marcel the Shell with Shoes On (7)
User avatar
waterloo_guy
Valued Contributor
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:50 pm
Location: Waterloo, ON

Re: One other thread to revive: Intellectual pet peeves

Post by waterloo_guy »

bpmod wrote:
waterloo_guy wrote:I'm willing to forgive its/it's to a certain extent because the general pattern would result in both the possesive and the "it is" contraction being "it's", so it's understandable that people might goof up on which is which.
What about the possessive 'his'? Just because a possessive ends in an 's' doesn't mean it gets an apostrophe. If one were to believe that all possessive pronouns need to have an apsotrophe and 's', one could say I's (or me's) instead of mine. But I don't think I've seen very many people make that mistake. Even in professional journalism.

Brian
Good point on the possessive pronouns. I will no longer be tolerant of others mixing up its and it's. :mrgreen:
User avatar
Volante
Harbinger of the Doomed Lemur
Posts: 9254
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm

Re: One other thread to revive: Intellectual pet peeves

Post by Volante »

bpmod wrote:
waterloo_guy wrote:I'm willing to forgive its/it's to a certain extent because the general pattern would result in both the possesive and the "it is" contraction being "it's", so it's understandable that people might goof up on which is which.
What about the possessive 'his'? Just because a possessive ends in an 's' doesn't mean it gets an apostrophe. If one were to believe that all possessive pronouns need to have an apsotrophe and 's', one could say I's (or me's) instead of mine. But I don't think I've seen very many people make that mistake. Even in professional journalism.

Brian
My, his, her, their aren't quite the same though; you're not simply adding an 's', you're changing the entire word.

"Its" occupies a no-man's-land: you're adding the 's' but NOT the apostrophe, so that other rule of "add an apostrophe + s" leaks in because you get so trained to do it the latter way when you add the 's'.

Plus "it's" won't be flagged by a spell checker. :D
The best thing that Neil Armstrong ever did, was to let us all imagine we were him.
Latest movies (1-10): Everything Everywhere All at Once (10), Ruby Gillman: Teenage Kraken (6), Black Sunday /1960/ (6), Marcel the Shell with Shoes On (7)
bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: One other thread to revive: Intellectual pet peeves

Post by bpmod »

Volante wrote:
bpmod wrote:
waterloo_guy wrote:I'm willing to forgive its/it's to a certain extent because the general pattern would result in both the possesive and the "it is" contraction being "it's", so it's understandable that people might goof up on which is which.
What about the possessive 'his'? Just because a possessive ends in an 's' doesn't mean it gets an apostrophe. If one were to believe that all possessive pronouns need to have an apsotrophe and 's', one could say I's (or me's) instead of mine. But I don't think I've seen very many people make that mistake. Even in professional journalism.

Brian
My, his, her, their aren't quite the same though; you're not simply adding an 's', you're changing the entire word.

"Its" occupies a no-man's-land: you're adding the 's' but NOT the apostrophe, so that other rule of "add an apostrophe + s" leaks in because you get so trained to do it the latter way when you add the 's'.

Plus "it's" won't be flagged by a spell checker. :D
OK, then, what about hers? Theirs? Yours?

Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
Post Reply