ozofprev Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 I didn't see this in previous peeves, but it bugs the crap out of me. So there. I won't add an additional comment.[:-timebm] From the department of redundancy department. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 My inspection reveals an additional inspection should be done by a licensed tradesperson/professional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozofprev Posted November 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Originally posted by Les My inspection reveals an additional inspection should be done by a licensed tradesperson/professional. Les, That's fine. What I dislike is: You should add an additional inspection by a ... If you like, add an additional five bucks and you can have ... After adding an additional two feet, the ... I suggest adding an additional bolt to secure the ... Add an additional acronym to your name ... It's along the lines of software program that I often see. Software is sufficient. Anal, I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Gary, likely only you, Mike O, Chad, Kurt and Scott would have caught it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozofprev Posted November 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 And Bonnie and Walter and Katen and now, you. [^] Not a bad group! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neal Lewis Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Originally posted by SonOfSwamp And now, a person who's buying a $1M house has to settle for information from an unreliable source.WJ What's the unreliable source? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozofprev Posted November 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Originally posted by Neal Lewis What's the unreliable source? Yeah, I gotta go with Neal on that one. Poor grammar isn't a connection to poor reliability - other than, how do you rely on something that's not written clearly. I found all of the following in just one person's posts on another thread here. To bad they can't be ... associatiuons there is know need posts like this are to common Och! And it was all from just three short posts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 We all make mistakes. I have learned from my mistakes. I have learned alot. I will learn in the future, ala mistake. Don't you think it is "ha-ha" funny that we all go over Walter J's posts looking for error? How many of the venerated few here would not own up to their mistakes? Cripes, it is a genuine game for me! If you ever get an e/m from Walter J or Gary R; sit down, take a deep breath, sip a little liquid courage and then open it and read. Remember they like you and are interested in the welfare of this business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozofprev Posted November 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Damn! Mentioned in the same sentence as Walter - I can die happy. Of course we all make mistakes. My God, I'm an idiot - seriously! I belong to a failed species, but there are some with enough smarts and conscience (ever notice, that's con science?) to give one hope. You're one of those, Les. Your smarts shine through in spite of any grammatical errors you might make. Thing is - those with little to offer generally have poor grammar. It is NOT true, however, that those with poor grammar always have little to offer. That makes things confusing. Take Kurt, he always misspells 'unfortunately' but he knows it, doesn't care, and is one of the brightest people I have ever known. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonOfSwamp Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Well, at the risk of stinging with the truth (as I see it), a source becomes unreliable when he demonstrates that he can't communicate at a level that gets the job done. He doesn't need to write like a 150-IQ Mensan; he just need to write like a cub reporter at USA Today. Sure, everybody makes an error now and then, but most HI reports I see have errors stacked on top of errors. I'm not talking about typos here and there; I'm talking about writers who just plain can't spell, or write a coherent sentence. In HI reports, logic errors and folklore abound. If a professional communicator fails at every level of writing, his reports are unreliable. Speaking just for myself, I think it's really easy to tell when a writer is reliable, and it's even easier to tell when a writer is unreliable. A person's words are pretty much a window into his brain. For some reason, we building science pros seem willing to forgive a lot of communication errors. How many of us would be willing to forgive math errors? If you were bossing a building job, how long would you put up with carpenters who cut the boards wrong, foundation guys who built a rhombus where they should've built a rectangle, and guys who can't add, subtract, multiply and divide? Why should people who work with words and/or numbers for a living get a pass when they screw up the words and numbers? A reliable source is pretty obvious -- he gets things right. An unreliable source gets things wrong. So, who are you going to rely on? WJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.