You can draw the curtains, draw a bath, draw your own conclusions. But you can’t draw a photo, in spite of what you’ll read on Yahoo! Travel:
I’m not going to mince my words: This little sentence on Yahoo! Style is the dumbest thing I’ve read today:
The writer (and her editor, if she has one) must be complete morons. This is from an article about Mr. Bublé “fat shaming” (yes, that is apparently a real thing) a stranger. The writer thinks “mincing words” means that he was somehow insulting or chewing out the stranger. It is the exact opposite. The American Heritage Dictionary says that “to mince” means “to moderate, restrain, or euphemize (words) for the sake of politeness and decorum: Don’t mince words: say what you mean.“
Where did she get that idea? Where did the writer for Yahoo! Style get the idea that dust (from hanging out in a desert) would be caked between cracks in one’s skin?
It would be caked in cracks. It’s just one more example of throwing out words without regard to their appropriateness. But this is Yahoo!. What should we expect?
Are you bored by the daily misuse of words by the writers at Yahoo!? Me, too! Here’s just the latest from Yahoo! Makers:
The American Heritage Dictionary says that bored with and bored by are preferred expressions when you’re bored:
If an activity or experience starts to bore you, are you bored by it, bored of it, or bored with it? All three constructions are common in informal writing and speech, but they enjoy different degrees of acceptance. The most widely approved wordings are bored with and bored by. In our 2012 survey, the sentences I’m getting bored with this lecture series and I’m getting bored by this lecture series were accepted by 93 percent and 88 percent of our Usage Panel, respectively. By contrast, only 24 percent of the Panelists found I’m getting bored of this lecture series at least somewhat acceptable.
Is this idiom used correctly on Yahoo! Style? Not by a long shot. And by that I mean, “NO!” Jeez, doesn’t the writer know that a long shot is a horse, person, or occurrence that has little or no chance of succeeding?
This writer also is a long shot for succeeding at writing. If she’s not the worst writer at Yahoo!, she’s at least a runner-up.
The writers for Yahoo! Style don’t exactly cut a wide swath through the English language. They’ve barely mastered a basic vocabulary:
They might swathe themselves in the pages of a good dictionary. Perhaps they’d learn the difference between swath (which is a noun meaning “a wide path” or “a great impression or display”) and swathe (a verb meaning “to wrap or bind.”)
Here’s my no-holds-barred reaction to this teaser on Yahoo! Celebrity: It sucks.
It sucks, but it doesn’t suck as hard as this writer’s attempt at the common expression.