1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

AP Stylebook: "More than" and "over" now mean the same thing

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by spikechiquet, Mar 20, 2014.

  1. jr/shotglass

    jr/shotglass Well-Known Member

    Well, at least that was civil.

    Whatever. I just don't happen to agree. He seemed -- seemed -- to be painting all copy editors with the same brush.
     
  2. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    Hence my previous question.

    He specifically included a "hacky, ill-read" qualifier for all to see, presumably so he wouldn't make a sweeping generalization.
     
  3. jr/shotglass

    jr/shotglass Well-Known Member

    And I was repeating "hacky, ill-read" to illustrate the ridiculousness of the statement. For all to see. In case he made a sweeping generalization.

    I am backing away quickly from this thread now. It's bringing out the worst in people.
     
  4. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    Since you're so insistent that I'm being a douche, I'll say this:

    Making this argument while pridefully admitting on another thread that you can't be bothered to know where and what "Crimea" is stands as a pretty good example of what's being discussed here.

     
  5. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    OK. Maybe some of us *do* need to go back to the basics.

    See, when you put some words in front of a noun in English, they are frequently considered "adjectives" and thus *modifying* the noun from its original meaning.

    So the noun "editors" can be taken to mean "all editors."

    But when you put "hacky, ill-read" in front of it, it no longer means "all editors." It means "the subset of editors who are hacky and ill-read." Now, from context, you can assume that I believe some percentage of editors fit that description, or I wouldn't be bringing it up, but the mere existence of the phrase in my post doesn't say whether I believe that percentage is 0.00000001 or 99.99999% or any number in between.
    The fact that I have to explain this is a bit awkward.
     
  6. trifectarich

    trifectarich Well-Known Member

    No need for an uproar here; it's just one of those times when I don't give a damn what the Stylebook says. I'll do it the same way I've done it for the last 37 years, thank you.
     
  7. Versatile

    Versatile Active Member

    MisterCreosote and RickStain are correct and artfully have explained their point. I have worked on three copy desks. Over a third of the copy editors I've worked with routinely let facts go unchecked while fixing pedantic shit like lowercasing the T in "NCAA tournament."

    It's easier to memorize rules than really dig into stories.
     
  8. da man

    da man Well-Known Member

    I see what you did there.
     
  9. MCbamr

    MCbamr Member

    Typical teen/20something says it is actually "more THEN"
     
  10. jr/shotglass

    jr/shotglass Well-Known Member

    Yes.

    Yes, they do.
     
  11. jr/shotglass

    jr/shotglass Well-Known Member

    Also known as Excuse No. 1A for not getting the pedantic shit right.

    But that's only my opinion.
     
  12. Versatile

    Versatile Active Member

    Do you really think that's a problem for me?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page