Comments on: Dear NPR… http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/10/22/dear-npr/ Just another geek in the geek kingdom Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:38:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: Kevin B. O'Reilly http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/10/22/dear-npr/comment-page-1/#comment-3146 Kevin B. O'Reilly Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:57:16 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=2029#comment-3146 Couldn't this have been live chatter? Even if it wasn't, it may have been hard to edit the sound to remove the redundancy. Couldn’t this have been live chatter? Even if it wasn’t, it may have been hard to edit the sound to remove the redundancy.

]]> By: Julian Sanchez http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/10/22/dear-npr/comment-page-1/#comment-3145 Julian Sanchez Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:02:04 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=2029#comment-3145 Mm, I think I see where you're getting that, but I don't think so. I'd unpack it as: "While nominally it may be a border, practically speaking it's only nominally a border." Mm, I think I see where you’re getting that, but I don’t think so. I’d unpack it as: “While nominally it may be a border, practically speaking it’s only nominally a border.”

]]> By: Christopher M http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/10/22/dear-npr/comment-page-1/#comment-3144 Christopher M Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:26:36 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=2029#comment-3144 How is it redundant? If anything, wouldn't it be the opposite, self-contradictory? "In all but name" vs. "in name only"? (Nothing better than picking a nitpicker's nits!) How is it redundant? If anything, wouldn’t it be the opposite, self-contradictory? “In all but name” vs. “in name only”?

(Nothing better than picking a nitpicker’s nits!)

]]> By: Julian Sanchez http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/10/22/dear-npr/comment-page-1/#comment-3143 Julian Sanchez Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:53:01 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=2029#comment-3143 Whoops! The "Thak you" was a little joke, but the "in purposes" was just a typo... It should've been "and purposes." My objection was that "for all intents and purposes" basically MEANS "in all but name" or "practically speaking, if not officially" ... so the combination is just stupid and redundant. Whoops! The “Thak you” was a little joke, but the “in purposes” was just a typo… It should’ve been “and purposes.” My objection was that “for all intents and purposes” basically MEANS “in all but name” or “practically speaking, if not officially” … so the combination is just stupid and redundant.

]]> By: digamma http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/10/22/dear-npr/comment-page-1/#comment-3142 digamma Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:32:33 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=2029#comment-3142 How can you tell the difference between "intents in purposes" and "intents 'n' purposes" on the radio? How can you tell the difference between “intents in purposes” and “intents ‘n’ purposes” on the radio?

]]> By: David http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/10/22/dear-npr/comment-page-1/#comment-3141 David Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:52:06 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=2029#comment-3141 "Thak you." Heh. Heal thyself, editor. ;) “Thak you.”

Heh. Heal thyself, editor. ;)

]]>