.....if there's anyone with an education writing many of the reports on the internet for major corporations or news sites.
The current ABC News site has an article about the sale (again) of the late Aaron Spelling's massive multi-million dollar estate in Beverly Hills. Among the sentences, this....
Petra, the formula one hairless, paid Candy Spelling $85 million for the place just three years ago.
I haven't quite figured it out!
Is "Petra" really hairless? Is her dog one of those hairless things?
.....if there's anyone with an education writing many of the reports on the internet for major corporations or news sites.
The current ABC News site has an article about the sale (again) of the late Aaron Spelling's massive multi-million dollar estate in Beverly Hills. Among the sentences, this....
Petra, the formula one hairless, paid Candy Spelling $85 million for the place just three years ago.
I haven't quite figured it out!
Is "Petra" really hairless? Is her dog one of those hairless things?
Or is she possibly an heiress?
Oh, dear!
Welcome to the age of "citizen journalism". Who can say what the origins of this story are, but professional it isn't.
Reminds me of that abject solecism "hair-loom" (heirloom). Where are we at (especially when one can deploy such a preposition at the end of a sentence - as I often hear police say in old episodes of "Cops"! "Where do you live at?")
It gets worse and worse. My hometown paper, the Houston Chronicle, is often referred to as the Houston Comical because of the journalistic gaffes that may be found each day.
With regard to the Spelling estate, I think this property was described by Andre Previn in his book "No Minor Chords." He said it "made Versailles look like a tool shed."
With regard to the Spelling estate, I think this property was described by Andre Previn in his book "No Minor Chords." He said it "made Versailles look like a tool shed."
I've been to Versailles. It doesn't strike me as a tool shed, but then again, it has no hair.
It's what happens when you remove humans from the equation and allow "spell check" to do your proofing for you.
In the case of "hairless" vs. "heiress", it truly depends upon how the writer spelled "heiress" that would give spellcheck the motive to substitute "hairless". I'm guessing it was spelled "hairess"...so what else is spellcheck supposed to think?
