• The forum software that supports hummy.tv has been upgraded to XenForo 2.3!

    Please bear with us as we continue to tweak things, and feel free to post any questions, issues or suggestions in the upgrade thread.

Assume v. Presume

MikeSh said:
Nah. I could never handle that much. These days it really is just a pint or I'd never make it home.

But in a sign of advancing years I'm having trouble holding a pint in my right hand, so I'm drinking them left handed :(
Click to expand...
I can hold a pint - in my hand. I can't hold it in my bladder. One of my hypertension tablets makes it worse.
 
Back in my younger days during a night in the pub I always visited the loo more than anyone else. What with that and a lot of tea and coffee during the day...
Now bendroflumethiazide is supposed to help reduce blood pressure by making me pee even more (at least in the morning).
MikeSh said:
worries about dehydration .
Click to expand...
So do I. It's a dilemma. Drink more pee more and possibly raise BP. Dehydrate with other health problems. :dunno:
 
Was catching up with the World Superbikes coverage when James Toseland (two time champion and now a co-commentator) was praising one of the riders and said "I am running out of expletives". :D
 
EEPhil said:
Re. score - if the journalist or editor doesn't know what it means, look it up or don't use it.
Click to expand...
Excellent advice, but unfortunately this falls into the category of an unknown unknown. The naïve have no idea they don't know what it means.

I'm sure we all experienced this at one time or another: a word gets bandied about and we pick it up and use it as the "in" thing without being aware of what it really means or the detailed connotations.

However, and as much as we may not like it, a word means what it is understood to mean in the era and context it is used. If "score" has mutated in modern usage to mean "lots" rather than specifically 20, the media mistake referenced might not be a mistake and is rather a subject for AvP.
 
Black Hole said:
I'm sure we all experienced this at one time or another: a word gets bandied about and we pick it up and use it
Click to expand...
The current over usage of "leverage" (usually pronounced the American way) in business or finance still confuses my brain. So I don't use it - except when referring to a lever (pivoted rigid bar or handle to operate mechanism).
Black Hole said:
unknown unknown.
Click to expand...
As in Donald Rumsfeld. Ridiculed, but it makes sense. With words, anything we are unsure of we should look up. There are plenty of on-line resources. Journalist are, supposedly, professional word-smiths and should know what they don't know. If not the editor should.
 
prpr said:
Revert means to go/change back. Things just revert, not revert back.
Click to expand...
Shirley "vert" would mean... then "re-..."... um...

"Restore"... put it back in the store?

"Reassure" annoys me. Usually used in a context where "assure" would be appropriate.
 
Apropos a recent spat, I wonder what the opinions are on the threshold percentage for what qualifies as a "vast majority"?

"Majority" is easy: anything more than 50%.

People might also say things like "large majority", "significant majority", "huge majority"... all attempting to qualify the simple "majority" by some implied (but unspecified) additional percentage, I suspect in an attempt to bluster (to which I am impervious). Boris and Trump are cases in point, able to rally the masses because it sounds good (but has no actual substance).

So, what do we think a "vast majority" is? I propose ≥︎ 99%, but I suppose I might be prepared to go as low as ≥︎ 95%.

As for "significant majority", I offer ≥︎ ⅔︎ (66.66...%).

I've also come up with a new one, "absolute majority": [number who voted for] > [ (number who voted against) + (number who did not vote) ]

In any case, it's a bad mistake to make a measurable claim without having first gathered the data.
 
Black Hole said:
Apropos a recent spat, I wonder what the opinions are on the threshold percentage for what qualifies as a "vast majority"?
Click to expand...
I haven't seen this argument.

Black Hole said:
So, what do we think a "vast majority" is? I propose ≥︎ 99%, but I suppose I might be prepared to go as low as ≥︎ 95%.
Click to expand...
Vast majority - in most cases I'd agree with you, it's over-used by feeble minded politicians. One of my most hated expressions is "the vast majority of the British people". Noone has every surveyed me, or anyone I know, so how can you make such an assertion?

As for absolute, simple, large, significant, huge, overwhelming etc., all rather meaningless (even "majority", maybe)
Context is everything. You might say Labour had a large majority at the election. Seats maybe, percentage of votes cast or even percentage of votes that could have been cast, I don't think so. In fact, no majority at all (20.1% of those eligible to vote).
If we must put a figure on vast majority, and in the 90%+ area sounds good, we'd need to insist that all those eligible are counted - as in your definition of absolute majority. But as politicians won't, then any prefix to majority could/should be treated with scepticism.
 
Did you complain about being called a "tiresome pedantic ******** to the mods and their reply was that the vast majority of members agreed? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top