Even if the writer for Yahoo! Sports had used the correct expression “in regard to,” this would still be awkward:
I’m speculating from this on the Yahoo! front page that the writer has never been engaged:
The coveted celebrity ring is the engagement ring — the one with the big stone. The wedding ring is that narrow band. I think that most people in the U.S. would know the difference. Perhaps the writer resides in a country that doesn’t have the tradition of engagement and wedding rings.
Yahoo! News is the armpit of online media. That’s not a compliment. It’s just a reaction I had to this made-up word that appears in a very large headline on the site:
Residents of New Jersey are New Jerseyans or New Jerseyites.
So, OK, the writer made up a word. Is that worse than making up rules for the use of the comma, and randomly sprinkling that punctuation in a sentence?
Probably not. It’s not worse than this:
If you’re trying to be sarcastic, you have to be scrupulous in your use of language; otherwise, readers will think your sarcasm is just one more careless or ignorant mistake. This attempt at sarcasm fails because the writer doesn’t know the difference between it’s (for “it is” or “it has”) and the possessive its. If the writer had mentioned that the state is famous for its even-keeled, milquetoast residents, then it might have been seen as an attempt at humor.
It’s hard not to cringe when you read something as poorly written as this article on Yahoo! Shine. From the typos and the writer’s imaginative spelling of Rutgers, it has a lot to offer the discerning reader:
She writes about an author whose most recent book is “The Essentials of Business Etiquette: How to Greet, Eat, and Tweet…” using who’s (which means “who is” or “who has”) and getting the title wrong:
I’d tell the writer to learn to proofread, or if you don’t have time, get someone to do it for you. It would be helpful to you for your career:
It’s time she learn the difference between a possessive pronoun (like its) and a contraction (like it’s):
If she learned to proofread, she could send an email and post something on a social media site without typos and missing words:
She might also learn to check her articles after they’ve been published to ensure she hasn’t omitted vital information, like the text of a tweet:
President Franklin Roosevelt described December 7, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, as a “date that will live in infamy.” In the U.S., it is an infamous date; a date with an exceedingly bad reputation; a heinous date; a notorious date. It’s hard to imagine how Pippa Middleton’s dress could be a heinous dress with a notorious, exceedingly bad reputation. But that’s what the brainiacs at yahoo.com allege:
Ms. Middleton’s gown may be well-known. It may be famous. But it is not infamous. Someone needs to spend a little more time with a dictionary.