Media mistakes

it is being sold by the litre in containers which happen to be in pint units.
So this isn't a 6 pint bottle then ?, I must remember to ask for a 3.408 Litre bottle next time I order it, really BH do you remember you recently said that you are prepared to admit when you are wrong ?
 
So this isn't a 6 pint bottle then ?, I must remember to ask for a 3.408 Litre bottle next time I order it, really BH do you remember you recently said that you are prepared to admit when you are wrong ?
The problem really is that decades ago we started a process of metrication but then bottled it 2/3rds, or 0.666667, of the way through, leaving us hobbled. Half the younger generation don't even understand feet and inches now, so I really think we should finish the frigging job off now.
Of course no government will have the guts to do it.
 
really BH do you remember you recently said that you are prepared to admit when you are wrong ?
In what way am I wrong? Unless in a reusable bottle, it isn't legal to sell milk by pints (no matter how it is dressed up). Anyone who believes they are buying pints are the ones who are wrong, or perhaps misled.
 
Last edited:
it isn't legal to sell milk by pints (no matter how it is dressed up).
But that label is a work of art. The 6 pints is in a pale section to one side, whereas the 3.408L is in the main section along with the product info. Which section is actually the label?
I'm sure Iceland, et al have had their legal beagles check that they are 0.1mm (4 thou) on the right side of the legislation :)
 
The problem really is that decades ago we started a process of metrication but then bottled it 2/3rds, or 0.666667, of the way through, leaving us hobbled. Half the younger generation don't even understand feet and inches now, so I really think we should finish the frigging job off now.
Of course no government will have the guts to do it.
So long as they don't spend billions changing the road signs. That would be fun then converting my digital speedometer to kph in my head every few miles on the road.
 
BBC Five o’clock news and Ben Brown read out a headline (not necessarily 100% accurately quoted- but the mistake is): “The UK recorded the highest number of Covid cases since the start of the pandemic last week”.
That is news. Pandemic only one week old. :D
 
The copyright on the end of Simon & Garfunkel's Concert in Central Park said MCMXXCII.
Sorry Yanks, but you're wrong, XXC is not 80 - you can only use one prefix. It's MCMLXXXII.
 
I think you didn't hear the comma between "pandemic" and "last".
That’s because there wasn’t one. That’s the point.
Edit: Even so, I think it is a clumsy way of saying what was meant. “Last week” makes more sense at the beginning of the sentence - at least to me.
 
Last edited:
Recruitment agency advert:

'Toolstation Recruitment 2021 - Toolstation provide an opportunity to apply Store Supervisor 35 hours New store opening in Penrith, that will be placed in Penrith. You will definitely get a better potential customer as well as safer dwell later on. Joining to this firm makes a people able to reach the goal simpler in addition to support the current dream be realized.

To help this company perspective and mission happens on legitimate Toolstation is actually started on brand-new place as November 2021. Everyone who are interested answering this particular vacant, make sure you take part in this kind of Store Supervisor 35 hours New store opening in Penrith recruitment. If you will be the one which can certainly fill up requirements, you can look at more info about Store Supervisor 35 hours New store opening in Penrith Job Openings below.'

The rest of the ad description is just as bad. I guess anyone who can string a sentence together is in with a chance.
 
“Last week” makes more sense at the beginning of the sentence - at least to me.
Agreed.

That’s because there wasn’t one. That’s the point.
Yes. Or there might have been, which got rushed over. I wasn't being entirely serious. TV announcers/newsreaders/script writers play fast and loose with grammar, for impact, but as a consequence (or possibly deliberately) obfuscate the meaning.

A typical way the BBC Wales local news might headline some obscure and unsubstantiated report released by a pressure group (fictitious, as an example): "The world will end in 10 days. That's according to..."
 
I wasn't being entirely serious.
How would we know?
I was. Numerous times recently I’ve thought that didn’t sound right or that’s ambiguous. If only the sentence was reordered. Makes me think: “I’ve written all the right words, but not necessarily in the right order”.
That reminds me - Sky News this morning. Stephen Dixon commenting on David Jason saying Danger Mouse was his favourite part. Dixon then comments that Jason and Eric Morecambe voiced the parts. It was Terry Scott you bozo! Someone corrected him via his earpiece within the minute.
 
Sounds more like a spam agency.
I agree, it might even be the Nigerian prince who wanted to put £1,000,000 into my bank account up to his latest trick. Has anyone else had the Indian NHS covid scammers phone them recently? I had them 3 times last week and they all hung up when I informed them that their fathers had intercourse with cows and their mothers fellated pigs and dogs ( I used more colourful terms than here to make sure they understood).
 
This may have come up before as it's a regular thing I see, but from a BBC News item tonight:
"... seeking to diffuse the row."
Diffuse does kinda work, but shouldn't it be "defuse"?
 
Back
Top