On 7/23/2012 2:24 PM, Walt Gilbert wrote:
On 7/23/2012 11:21 AM, John Francis wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:04:21PM -0400, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/07/digital-photography?fsrc=nlw|newe|7-23-2012|2867084|36077652|
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
I guess the Economist pays by the word.
The facts in the entire article could easily have been expressed in
maybe one quarter of the space.
Maybe I was pre-conditioned to dislike the example by the pretentious
use of "your correspondent" where "I" would have sufficed - it was a
twee affectation when it was done in the gossip columns of 50 years
ago, when it at least had the excuse of protecting the identity of the
pseudonymous authors.
I always preferred the editorial "we".
I always thought that the editorial we was as pretentious as the Royal
we when not used by a Royal. Though any way I look at it, it's still
grating, much like fingernails on a chalkboard.
-- Walt
--
Don't lose heart, they might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a
lengthly search.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
