canada.com/princerupert/stor … 63a24dd12d
seriously… laying the smack down? no wonder nobody takes rupert seriously.
LATETH THE SMACKETH DOWN ON YOUR CANDY ASS!
Well since the person writing the article is still very young herself… it makes more sense than it would coming from another journalist at the Daily News.
well really that shouldnt have gotten past the editors… there are editors right?
I’d be wary of getting caugth up in a “traditional, old boys club” mode of “proper” speech. Language evolves. Constantly.
Look at what blogging has done. Language has become more casual, colloquial. Many people mourn for the loss of very rigid rules of discourse, but the times, as the kids keep telling me, they are a-changin’.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that you can look at it as childish, silly, and unprofessional. Or you can look at it as liberal and forward-thinking.
That whole article is stupid. Zero-tolerance? So no more Harley Davidsons or weekend parties?
If you were any where other then the north coast, with the Harley’s and the way the guys have the exhaust up here, the cops will pull you over for a noise violation.
Beside me lives a Harley owner (I use to enjoy the sound, but when it’s right beside you it is no longer enjoyable). Across the street lives a teenager who enjoys loud music . I’ve never called the cops on either of them. But when I read the above mentioned article I prayed that my neighbors also read it.
While it’s true that language does evolve, the reason they call it evolution is because it happens slowly over time. And while blogging may indeed be making English journalism more relaxed and colloquial, there are still necessary limits.
The reason is simple: journalism has to appeal to a mass audience. Mass audiences look to journalism to read about serious issues. Serious issues must be presented seriously. Thus, by injecting slang and colloquialisms into serious journalism, it makes it difficult for mass audiences to take it seriously.
To put it another way, the presentation is just as important as the content itself. Imagine for a moment that I was going to an interview for a position as a banker. Let’s say that I’ve graduated from Harvard and got my master’s degree from Oxford. I also have a network of contacts that makes me a perfect candidate for the position they want.
Now imagine that I show up to the interview, unshaven, wearing a Metallica t-shirt and ripped up jeans. Do you think for one second that they’d even let me in the office, let alone listen to a word I had to say? Even if they did, they’d no doubt get the impression that I don’t take them seriously, and thus they wouldn’t take me seriously either.
Language may evolve, but you can’t force it. And you certainly can’t do so by using hackneyed phrases coming from professional wrestlers of all people.
[quote=“Dave”]
Beside me lives a Harley owner (I use to enjoy the sound, but when it’s right beside you it is no longer enjoyable). Across the street lives a teenager who enjoys loud music . I’ve never called the cops on either of them. But when I read the above mentioned article I prayed that my neighbors also read it.[/quote]
One of my favourite stories on this subject is about a man who was arrested for a noise violation. He was playing loud hip-hop music from his car. At trial, the judge found him guilty and gave him what I believe to be the perfect sentence. He said to the man “You impose your music on me, I’m going to impose my music on you.” He gave the man a choice: either pay a $500 fine or sit in the judge’s chambers for two and a half hours and listen to opera.
orangetang wrote:
Zero-Tolerance indicates that it won’t be accepted anymore, not that it doesn’t happen. Hence, there will be Harley’s and there will be parties, but there will also be tickets and, if it continues, seizures of equipment, arrests, etc. So if you think the article is stupid, I have but one question: Are you a harley owner or one of those jerks that have loud parties all the time?
Hilary Burghardt is powerfully pretty, so she should be able to do what she wants, when she wants, and at all times.
wierd how that works.
And this makes sense how?
Unless you’re a very hot dude or an ugly girl, you wouldn’t know…
[quote=“Tricky-J”]orangetang wrote:
Zero-Tolerance indicates that it won’t be accepted anymore, not that it doesn’t happen. Hence, there will be Harley’s and there will be parties, but there will also be tickets and, if it continues, seizures of equipment, arrests, etc. So if you think the article is stupid, I have but one question: Are you a harley owner or one of those jerks that have loud parties all the time?[/quote]
No, I don’t have a Harley or throw parties, but I certainly don’t give a shit if other people do.
Well, I’m all for freedom, live and let live and all that.
But man, part of that is the “let live” part – some people work long shifts, need to sleep, want to enjoy their homes without having to hear loud noise at 3:00 AM. At some point, the freedom to make loud noise with a Harley (or have a loud party) infringes on other’s rights to sleep.
Then maybe there should be a bylaw or something that doesn’t permit loud noises after a certain hour… We had the aviation graduates and 1st years come over for some drinks and food at the end of the year and the RCMP were asking us to kick everyone out at 10:05PM. What about our rights to celebrate the graduation of several students and pilots? We were barely making noise, but some cranky bitch in the unit across the way didn’t like it. Lots of our neighbours stopped by to give congrats and nobody actually complained. Zero-tolerance is completely silly in my eyes. If someone is consistently being a noise problem, like the house behind ours… fine them, but don’t fuck around with the rest of us who might need to enjoy ourselves once in a blue moon.