Obviously the editor should of fixed it ...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.
Pet Intellectual Peeves
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
- econgator
- Let's Go Mets!
- Posts: 10673
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:32 am
Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves
- Paucle
- Trekardy! Writer
- Posts: 3233
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:36 pm
- Location: near Albany NY
Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves
rimshot!econgator wrote:Obviously the editor should of fixed it ...
-
- The support is non-zero
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves
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?"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.
-
- The support is non-zero
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves
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.
"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.
- Volante
- Harbinger of the Doomed Lemur
- Posts: 9254
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm
Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves
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!!)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.
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)
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)
- jpahk
- Jeopardy! TOCer
- Posts: 615
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:16 am
Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves
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.
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.
-
- The support is non-zero
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves
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.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.
ETA: oops, violated my own rule of not reading your posts because of your lack of capitalization.
- alietr
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8980
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
- Location: Bethesda, MD
Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves
The past, present, and future walked into a bar. It was tense.
- Volante
- Harbinger of the Doomed Lemur
- Posts: 9254
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm
Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves
13% greater chance of dying over 20 years still lacks critical context, though.Vanya wrote: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.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.
ETA: oops, violated my own rule of not reading your posts because of your lack of capitalization.
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)
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)
- Volante
- Harbinger of the Doomed Lemur
- Posts: 9254
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm
Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves
That literally caused me pain.alietr wrote:The past, present, and future walked into a bar. It was tense.
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)
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)
- trainman
- Moderator Extraordinaire
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:27 pm
Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves
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?"Vanya wrote:What about the lack of quotes in "What if LeBron said, Let's make a run at a title?"
The comma and the capital letter are basically for clarity.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:45 am
Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves
Fixed it for you.Volante wrote:That literally caused me pain.alietr wrote:The past, present, and future walked/walk/will walk into a bar. It was/is/will be tense.
-
- The support is non-zero
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves
No, the comma and capital letter are incorrect. Use them and quotes, or don't use them at all.trainman wrote: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?"Vanya wrote:What about the lack of quotes in "What if LeBron said, Let's make a run at a title?"
The comma and the capital letter are basically for clarity.
-
- The support is non-zero
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
- Contact:
- 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
Was it intentional that you wrote "intentional" instead of "intentionally"?Volante wrote:It makes me loose my mind!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??
(Seriously, I've seen that flub so often I can't help but think people are doing it intentional now.)
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.
-
- Rank
- Posts: 5424
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
- Location: Hamilton Ontario
Re: One other thread to revive: Intellectual pet peeves
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.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.
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.
If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
- 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
Wow, blast from the past...waterloo_guy wrote:Was it intentional that you wrote "intentional" instead of "intentionally"?Volante wrote:It makes me loose my mind!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??
(Seriously, I've seen that flub so often I can't help but think people are doing it intentional now.)
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)
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)
- 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
Good point on the possessive pronouns. I will no longer be tolerant of others mixing up its and it's.bpmod wrote: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.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.
Brian
- 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
My, his, her, their aren't quite the same though; you're not simply adding an 's', you're changing the entire word.bpmod wrote: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.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.
Brian
"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.
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)
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)
-
- Rank
- Posts: 5424
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
- Location: Hamilton Ontario
Re: One other thread to revive: Intellectual pet peeves
OK, then, what about hers? Theirs? Yours?Volante wrote:My, his, her, their aren't quite the same though; you're not simply adding an 's', you're changing the entire word.bpmod wrote: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.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.
Brian
"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.
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.
If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.