Unless Abercrombie & Fitch are stripping down to their skivvies, this bears only the slightest resemblance to the correct word on Yahoo! Style:
If you’re ever tempted to say in regards to — don’t! Stop yourself before you look like this grammatically challenged writer on Yahoo! Style:
The correct expression is in regard to. If you can’t remember which is correct (in regard to or in regards to), just say regarding. It’s shorter and will save you time and space.
What do you think of writers who forget grammar and can’t match a verb to its subject? I’m thinkin’ of the person behind this grammatical goof on yahoo.com:
Is that just a careless typo, a slip of a digit? Or is that an indication of a deeper, more serious attention deficit disorder when it comes to grammar?
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.“
In this episode of “You Write the Top, I’ll Write the Bottom,” we see the results of disagreement in the correct abbreviation of pounds:
So, which is correct and why are they the same? Most authorities would side with lb., without the S. Why are there two versions of the abbreviation? Because this is yahoo.com. ‘Nuf said.