Do we really want to know what they were pouring?

by Henry Farrell on June 28, 2010

“The FT today”: (I wonder how long this will stay uncorrected).



Theophylact 06.28.10 at 8:12 pm

Ah, the wonders of spellcheck.


LFC 06.28.10 at 8:30 pm



JulesLt 06.28.10 at 8:58 pm

Welcome to the future.


garymar 06.28.10 at 9:05 pm

maybe they were “pouring attention” all over it.


stostosto 06.28.10 at 10:44 pm

Henry, you are such a bour.


Salient 06.28.10 at 11:24 pm

It’s these dry and dore posts which I adour. :)


Warren Terra 06.28.10 at 11:37 pm

Fixed, now, don’t know how long it’s been.


john c. halasz 06.29.10 at 12:31 am

Perhaps this is what was meant:


NomadUK 06.29.10 at 8:42 am

Hey, pour, pore, poar, pure, whatever, right? English is a living language! Words mean whatever we want them to. Who needs spelling, anyway? Damn prescriptivists!

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’


Farren Hayden 06.29.10 at 9:18 pm

Banking lobbyists may well be pawing the details


etbnc 06.29.10 at 10:05 pm

I kind of expected someone to suggest “blood” by now.


Helen 06.29.10 at 11:43 pm

This happens every day in the Australian print media. I can’t understand why (a) Journalism courses require stratospheric VCE (=A level) results, and (b) the standard is getting worse every year, both in the mechanics of writing and the level of analysis (many more journalist pieces which are essentially top and tailed press releases). The two don’t seem to gel together.

*Waves stick*
*hobbles away on zimmer frame*

Comments on this entry are closed.