General Discussion

cyclonefence

(4,483 posts) Wed Jan 17, 2018, 06:10 PM Jan 2018

I'm reading the Wolff book

Last edited Wed Jan 17, 2018, 06:53 PM - Edit history (1)

and so far no surprises--it's all been reported. But I have been appalled by the poor editing, and I'm not talking about fine points of grammar. On page 127, the winner:

"Bannon was making his first official pubic appearance..."

ETA Yes, I'm ten years old.

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I'm reading the Wolff book (Original Post) cyclonefence Jan 2018 OP

My guess is that nobody uses grammar check anymore because it's a waste of time. It takes too long politicaljunkie41910 Jan 2018 #1

I think you're only splitting hairs ..... OnDoutside Jan 2018 #2

You just go right over there and sit in the corner and think about what you did cyclonefence Jan 2018 #4

I did but they weren't good thoughts.... 😉 OnDoutside Jan 2018 #7

from what I've read about Bannon, it probably was a pubic appearance Motley13 Jan 2018 #3

Oh, good, lord, I certainly hope not! lindysalsagal Jan 2018 #5

Just for the record. I NEVER want to think about Bannon's pubic appearance. moriah Jan 2018 #6

politicaljunkie41910

(3,335 posts)

1. My guess is that nobody uses grammar check anymore because it's a waste of time. It takes too long

Reply to cyclonefence (Original post)

Wed Jan 17, 2018, 06:18 PM

Jan 2018

chasing things that are not mistakes, and cannot decipher between actual mistakes like pubic and public. That's the reason I don't use it.

OnDoutside

(19,956 posts)

2. I think you're only splitting hairs .....

Reply to cyclonefence (Original post)

Wed Jan 17, 2018, 06:20 PM

Jan 2018

cyclonefence

(4,483 posts)

4. You just go right over there and sit in the corner and think about what you did

Reply to OnDoutside (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 17, 2018, 06:54 PM

Jan 2018

OnDoutside

(19,956 posts)

7. I did but they weren't good thoughts.... 😉

Reply to cyclonefence (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 17, 2018, 07:47 PM

Jan 2018

Motley13

(3,867 posts)

3. from what I've read about Bannon, it probably was a pubic appearance

Reply to cyclonefence (Original post)

Wed Jan 17, 2018, 06:21 PM

Jan 2018

lindysalsagal

(20,679 posts)

5. Oh, good, lord, I certainly hope not!

Reply to Motley13 (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 17, 2018, 06:55 PM

Jan 2018

AAAHHHHH!!!!!!! Yike!

moriah

(8,311 posts)

6. Just for the record. I NEVER want to think about Bannon's pubic appearance.

Reply to cyclonefence (Original post)

Wed Jan 17, 2018, 06:58 PM

Jan 2018

But if it's true that some people feel the need to compensate as an explanation for certain behaviors, I'm sure anyone exposed to it was safe unless they had a magnifying glass.

Reply to this discussion