Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #2070826

Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

Show all headers | View raw

On 06/03/2016 15:26, Don Martin wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:37:27 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 05/03/2016 18:45, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
>>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
>>>
>>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
>>>>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>>>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God.
>>>>>>>>> Beliefs need no proof.
>>>>>>>>> Assertions do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you're wrong.  It's a belief.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't it also a "tenant"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or
>>>>>>> anyone else to have the same belief.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or the same "tenant", right?
>>>>>
>>>>> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an
>>>>> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so
>>>>> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for
>>>>> the word "tenet"?
>>>>
>>>> Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" when
>>>> he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, he hasn't
>>>> given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep trying.
>>>
>>> OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the
>>> same error (along with *many* others - breech/breach,
>>> brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently
>>> in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only
>>> get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate
>>> expression becomes more "optional".
>>>
>>> /end rant/
>>>
>>
>> Irregardless of anything else, I like your sediments allot.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> It goes beyond education, IMO.  The media (in particular print) are
>> under strong pressure to control costs.  So one editor will be asked to
>> do the job of two or three.  Proof-readers will be replaced by
>> spellchecking software.  Journalists will be encouraged to use dictation
>> software and feed their articles directly into the system.  This means
>> that mistakes will not be caught before they hit the audience.
>>
>> Plus, of course, there seems to be a general disdain for such nitpicking
>> pettifoggery.  Complain about typos, and you will likely receive looks
>> of pity or even scorn from people who are so used to these errors that
>> they do not even perceive them anymore as wrong.
>>
>> Not to mention that there will always be at least one smart aleck who
>> will trot out the old line that "English is always changing, always in
>> flux, so this is only natural evolution" .... and so gloss over the
>> vital difference between natural change in a language and simple bad usage.
>
> I am presently reading an otherwise very good WWII book, _The
> Nightingale_ by Kristin Hannah, that has a German in a train
> compartment reading a book on one page, and says on the next that he
> did not look up from his German newspaper.  This sort of goof that
> anyone can make (and does) is the sort of thing authors and publishers
> need human copy editors to catch.  To my mind, the publishers need
> them more, as their reputations are more on the line when the book is
> in their print, but they probably cannot afford it any more.  I think
> ebooks are doing to publishers what Gutenberg did to the monks.
>

OTOH, mistakes in print back then could be very costly indeed.  The 
publishers of the Wicked Bible (where a simple omission meant that one 
of the ten commandments demanded that the faithful indulge in adultery) 
lost their licence and were fined very heavily.

Back to alt.atheism | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:45 -0700
  Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 19:22 +0000
    Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:04 -0700
    Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 10:49 -0700
      Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-06 18:22 +0000
  Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-06 11:37 +0000
    Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-06 10:26 -0500
      Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-06 16:42 +0000
    Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 11:05 -0700
      Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-07 12:11 +0000
        Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-07 11:38 -0700
        Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-07 18:52 +0000
          Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:22 -0500
            Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-08 07:55 +0000
        Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:21 -0500

csiph-web