|
|
Post by jean on Jan 11, 2010 15:19:15 GMT
But there is a point about corporacy here. If you have a PR Department unable to use apostrophes properly, it doesn't foster trust in the other parts of the organisation. It makes the organisation look sloppy, careless, poorly educated, whatever . . . I do agree really, especially when it's a large organisation, and I do react like that myself. I'm just being devil's advocate. But I do think about my sister, who's dyslectic but a brilliant cook and who always gets very upset when people (as they occasionally do) point out the spelling mistakes in her menus instead of praising her food. |
|
|
|
Post by everso on Jan 11, 2010 15:24:34 GMT
But there is a point about corporacy here. If you have a PR Department unable to use apostrophes properly, it doesn't foster trust in the other parts of the organisation. It makes the organisation look sloppy, careless, poorly educated, whatever . . . I do agree really, especially when it's a large organisation, and I do react like that myself. I'm just being devil's advocate. But I do think about my sister, who's dyslectic but a brilliant cook and who always gets very upset when people (as they occasionally do) point out the spelling mistakes in her menus instead of praising her food. Ah, now I don't object to spelling mistakes on menus. Excellent spelling isn't expected of chefs, as you say it's the cooking that counts, but where a company is using English to communicate (i.e. the NHS) it should be impeccable. Although, of course, you should know what you're ordering in a restaurant  |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 11, 2010 15:31:45 GMT
I don't think we usually correct each other's grammar and spelling on this board... In my defence (and Nick's) I should say that our disagreement began on the Word of Mouth board, where this sort of thing is what we do (well not correcting each other, so much as discussing what we think would or wouldn't be acceptable, or what we might mean by a particular form of words). (I could give you a link, if you're interested...) |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 11, 2010 16:03:55 GMT
But there is a point about corporacy here. If you have a PR Department unable to use apostrophes properly, it doesn't foster trust in the other parts of the organisation. It makes the organisation look sloppy, careless, poorly educated, whatever . . . I do agree really, especially when it's a large organisation, and I do react like that myself. I'm just being devil's advocate. But I do think about my sister, who's dyslectic but a brilliant cook and who always gets very upset when people (as they occasionally do) point out the spelling mistakes in her menus instead of praising her food. Presumably your sister isn't aiming for a career in copywriting then. I don't mind cooks who can't spell; I do object to company PR departments who can't. |
|
|
|
Post by Weyland on Jan 11, 2010 16:09:34 GMT
(I could give you a link, if you're interested...) I dare not go there. It would consume the entire time I'm awake, and give me bad dreams as well. The very first "messageboard" I ever got involved in was an internal corporate thing in 1985 or so. It was called NITPICK. Please do NOT tempt me. These days I only pick nits when there is a good reason to mock the culprit. Such as a lorralorra posts on The Harbour. (Which should really be renamed Anti-Europe Rant -- though even that hardly reflects the full drivelosity of the place these days.) |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 11, 2010 16:48:45 GMT
Where is this Harbour? I've heard of it, but never been there.
|
|
|
|
Post by NickCosmoSonde on Jan 11, 2010 16:49:29 GMT
Odd then that you don't seem able to stop reverting to the subject.
Yes, you've made that clear often enough. The only parallel I can see is that I too am someone who has disagreed with you.
Lot thing we can without, Jean. Question is, should?
"Obsolescent" means "no longer in use", incidentally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Weyland on Jan 11, 2010 17:02:43 GMT
"Obsolescent" means "no longer in use", incidentally. I'm a frayed knot, Nick. |
|
|
|
Post by everso on Jan 11, 2010 17:06:12 GMT
I don't think we usually correct each other's grammar and spelling on this board... In my defence (and Nick's) I should say that our disagreement began on the Word of Mouth board, where this sort of thing is what we do (well not correcting each other, so much as discussing what we think would or wouldn't be acceptable, or what we might mean by a particular form of words). (I could give you a link, if you're interested...) Fairy Nuff. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 11, 2010 17:14:45 GMT
The only parallel I can see is that I too am someone who has disagreed with you. No Nick, that is not all - you are someone who has been very rude to me* because I have not agreed with you. No it doesn't - that's obsolete.Obsolescent means going out of use. Odd then that you don't seem able to stop reverting to the subject. I believe I said something very like that to you, as well. *(though not in the same terms.) |
|
|
|
Post by NickCosmoSonde on Jan 11, 2010 17:48:37 GMT
Oh? If I have ever been rude to you I apologise unreservedly. But just in case you think it would be empty, perhaps you could supply a reference(s) as evidence for such misbehaviour? I promise I will resist the overwhelming urge to do the same.
I stand corrected. All the same, it isn't with me - or quite a few others, such as the BBC stylebook, despite Mr.Rosen's efforts.
At the last count I'd asked you - politely as far as I recall - five times to please drop the subject, dear. "Let's just agree to disagree", four times. You say tomato, I say potato, let's leave it at that shall we - three times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Weyland on Jan 11, 2010 18:02:53 GMT
I stand corrected. All the same, it isn't with me - or quite a few others, such as the BBC stylebook, despite Mr.Rosen's efforts. F F S. I gather that you and Jean have had disagreements about grammar and such in the past. And yet you still come out with nit-infested stuff like that. What am I missing here? Deathwish? [Please tell me about the BBC stylebook version of obsolescence. A link will do.] |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 11, 2010 18:24:48 GMT
Oh Nick, I couldn't - you were so unfluffy, you'd be embarrassed to see it all laid out on this board.
It was in your hands - I told you to stop opening my PMs, but you would have the last word.
|
|
|
|
Post by everso on Jan 11, 2010 18:41:57 GMT
Now that's enough you two. No more arguing.
Good lord, as if I don't have enough on my plate, what with looking after my two squabbling grandchildren on Tuesdays and Thursdays......
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 11, 2010 19:45:28 GMT
Oh Nick, I couldn't - you were so unfluffy, you'd be embarrassed to see it all laid out on this board. It was in your hands - I told you to stop opening my PMs, but you would have the last word. OK, here is my judgement. Jean, if you are still sending the PMs, it's not really reasonable to make it Nick's fault for keeping opening them. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 11, 2010 19:46:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by artistlily on Jan 11, 2010 21:10:40 GMT
I hope this gets sorted out, it's a shame when two nice people fall out.
I am glad to see Nick about, in any shape or form. x
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 11, 2010 21:17:25 GMT
I hope this gets sorted out, it's a shame when two nice people fall out. I am glad to see Nick about, in any shape or form. x Lil, can I tell you what my intuition is telling me . . they have no more fallen out than the earth has stood still, but we're all just observers in a long, elaborate piss-take. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 11, 2010 21:18:38 GMT
BTW, I was working from memory, so I apologise for calling Nick Nick Osmonde as opposed to the more exotic NickCosmoSonde.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 11, 2010 22:03:33 GMT
Thanks for the link. I may regret it. Jean, if you are still sending the PMs, it's not really reasonable to make it Nick's fault for keeping opening them. I'm not blaming him for opening them - I'm blaming him for blaming me for making him open them. |
|
