Jump to content

Recommended Posts

using 'oh' as part of a phone number is fine, because everyone knows there are no letters in telnos, and it's quicker than saying zero. Only for (say) passport nos or other strings which have potentioal of zeros AND 'ohs' do we need to be so specific.

technically it's arguable, but not for real-world usage. In IT, I can see the point also.


"Let me be honest with you"

(translates to "normally I'm dishonest when speaking with you")

Whilst I'm with you on superfluity ed_pete, much fruit is picked green, stuffed in a chiller on a ship and then bombarded with ethylene to ripen it just before it hits the market.


Some fruits do only ripen on the tree, so in that case it would be unnecessary.


I mused to a colleague whether fruit that ripened on my desk was really just rotten fruit, started investigating ripening and was very soon lost as I last did chemistry a looooong time ago.


http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2011/10/12/fruit-ripening-how-does-it-work/

Wow - you must be a hoot to work with EP. ;-)


Tautology is quite annoying. The hoi-polloi gets me every time as does "free gift". Also "safe-haven".


But these are often so ingrained we rarely stop to consider them.


And they are of miniscule annoyance compared to "centred around". A pox on your house!

Oh and sandwiches, there probably is a legal definition, but the main reason places like Pret want to make themselves stand out is that most sandwiches are a few days old by the time you eat them, if bought pre-packed.


So for man's greatest luncheon, I'm not sure the wording is superfluous.

RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> david_carnell Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Tautology is quite annoying.

>

> And what of pleonasm, good sir?

>

> And Pibe, I've toured the Kettle Chips factory -

> they are a little more more hand cooked than that.


Pleonasm has its place. Mainly in literature and speeches for rhetorical effect. Shakespeare and Beckett did it, Churchill did it. That'll satisfy me.

As a blanket rule that doesn't really work, Eric Gill shagged his dog for instance, if it was good enough for him ;-)


I get your point though 'something done well is good' is something of a superfluity in itself.

Plenoasty is a modern day scourge, a bit of discipline in writing these days would be most welcome.


I had to precis a 10 page document by Accenture to help my wife prepare for an interview a couple of days ago and I only found 4 salient points, the rest was just waffle.

Gill having sex with his dog was the least of his problems!


And it wasn't stated as a blanket rule to adhere to, merely an example of when repetition and redundancy can actually be used skillfully for rhetorical purposes.


Obviously in corporate documents, like the one you mention, it should be removed and the authors birched.


Working in a press office in the civil service, I often have to decifer policy documents for their salient points to write a press release. My brain tends to ache by the end. Stakeholder? No, that was soooo 1997. Partner? No - has liberal connotations. Horizontal interest group? Ah, winner. We like those. Yeah, except no one has the foggiest feck what you're talking about.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...