Blades schmades

You might call them shoulders, but to this Yahoo! Style writer, they’re shoulder blades:

Here’s that suit with its “aggressive shoulder blades”:

Those are some shoulder pads! One might even call them “aggressive.” Perhaps that’s what this writer, with her ignorance on basic human anatomy, meant.

No access to Google?

Apparently Yahoo! Style writers have no access to the Internet and search engines, so they’re reliant on their memories when they write. Unfortunately, some have a rather faulty memory:

The former Kate Middleton is really Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge.

Left to her own devices

Without benefit of a competent editor, the Yahoo! Style writer was left to her own devices. So she came up with a statement that’s just not right:

Ford does it twice!

If you read this headline on Yahoo! Finance, would you be as confused as I am?

That headline from the homepage of Finance is for an article about Ford and General Motors. How much confidence would you have in the accuracy of the article?

Linda Farrow makes sandals, too?

If you’re familiar with Linda Farrow, you know it’s a brand of luxury sunglasses. Did you know that Linda Farrow offers sandals? Me neither. But that’s what I read on Yahoo! Style:

Of course, those sandals don’t look like gold, do they? You’d think the writer was actually describing aviator sunglasses.

She’s still not a princess

Let’s skip right over that misspelling of a cappella on Yahoo! Style and focus on the misspelling of Charlotte Casiraghi’s name:

And then let’s focus on the assertion that she is an “actual Princess of Monaco.” No, even if the writer had managed to get her name right, she’d be wrong about that royal title. Charlotte Casiraghi may be eighth in line to the throne of Monaco, but she is not a princess; in fact, she has no royal title. None.

Is it my lyin’ eyes?

I know nothing about fashion. So is it my ignorance of current clothing trends that makes me not see what this writer sees?

managed-to-match

She claims that these two women’s jackets matched. But I just don’t see it:

bella mariah

She could be right. If she means that both gals are wearing blue jackets with a zipper and two sleeves, she’s right. As long as we ignore the fact the Ms. Hadid’s jacket has a ruched front, but Ms. Carey’s doesn’t, she right. If we overlook the difference in the width and colors in the bands, she’s right. If we don’t take into account that the jacket on the left has ruching along the zipper and the one on the right has none, and the one on the right has a collar and a long zipper, but the one on the left has neither, she’s right. And if we don’t consider that one is cropped and one isn’t, she’s right. And one has set-in sleeves and the other, raglan sleeves, she’s right. So, it must be me.

I certainly know now to trust this writer and not my lying eyes. It’s my lying eyes that tell me that Ms. Hadid’s zipper isn’t circular, but her zipper pull is:

circular-zipper

I’ve got to start reading more fashion sites if I’m going to keep up with fashion. But maybe I won’t start with Yahoo! Style.

Not even trying

There are times when I read something on Yahoo! Style and think, the writer isn’t even trying to be accurate. This is one of those times:

lisa-rena

The writer didn’t bother to do a little research into Lisa Rinna’s name. She couldn’t be bothered to find out the name of Ms. Rinna’s husband. Her husband is not Mark Hamlin; he’s Harry Hamlin. She’s just not tryin’.

Maybe we should ask for a translation, part deux

I was going to ask Google for  simultaneous translation of this caption from Yahoo! Style, but I’m rethinking that decision. I’m pretty sure I don’t want to know what the writer was saying:

short-shorts

I’m a writer, not a mathematician!

Yahoo! writers aren’t known for their mathematical ability. Or even their 3-grade arithmetic ability. It’s enough that they manage to write a sentence with both a subject and a verb, like this one:

legs-sty-1

So, don’t be criticizing this writer because this is almost correct — meaning that it is completely wrong:

legs-sty-2

At 51.5 inches, the woman’s legs are 4 feet, 3.5 inches long. That’s not almost 4 feet, 3 inches because almost means “slightly short of; not quite; nearly,” according to the American Heritage Dictionary. But at least the sentence has a subject and verb. There’s that.

 

%d bloggers like this: