Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I am an entropy magnet.
-- Less talk, more monkeys.
-- Indulge often. Welcome temptation. Resist nothing. Satisfy always.
-- Delicious and Nutritious!
-- More drinking, less driving.
-- Admit it, so are you.
Overheard: I'm like the Chrysler Building; I'm so underrated! But I'm not like the Empire State Building. I don't want you in me, I just want you to look at me from afar.
About Me
Twitter Updates
Funny
- Wicked Good Guide to Boston English. Learn the terminology; I'll make way more sense, promise.
- xkcd. Romance,sarcasm, math, and language? Sign me up!
- Intern George, my husband is both eloquent and helpful around the office!
- Indexed
- Joe Mathlete, and his associated glory.
- Veiled Conceit, pseudo-aristocratic vanity.
- 1001 Monkeys
- Overheard in New York
Faves
- Abbie the Cat has a Posse, 17", 15 lbs.
- Reader, avoiding her dissertation with poise.
- Bostonist, because we love that dirty water.
- Brooklyn Bride, pretty and elegant in any borough.
- PostSecret; we're all hiding something.
Friends
- Auntie Amanda advises you.
- Epenthesis Enterprises
- Adam's Dailies
- Hudson Views, mostly in English, despite initial appearances.
- Just Me and the Captain, but not that captain!
Blog Archive
StatCounter
1 comment:
Hmm, is it really vandalism to correct a mistake? Well, obviously the courts think so. I'm not sure I agree with them though. I doubt that they had the ability to provide the aesthetic quality to the signs in addition to making them technically correct. But grammar is also part of aesthetics. A more interesting question would be if they did manage to make the grammatically accurate while staying within the stylistic boundaries the sign already had, would that be considered vandalism? As I would consider that an improvement on the product, I would personally say "No," but I would like to see how that court case would turn out.
Post a Comment