Author Topic: The Grumble Thread - No energy for a full on rant.  (Read 730485 times)

ian

  • fatuously disingenuous
    • The Suburban Survival Guide
Re: The Grumble Thread - No energy for a full on rant.
« Reply #11825 on: February 14, 2020, 01:47:37 pm »
They're just ever-so-carefully avoiding assumptions.  Even during their appeals for witnesses back in the 1950s the Beeb would speak of "a car that mounted the pavement" rather than someone driving onto it.

Except they don't do so elsewhere, it's mostly only motorised vehicles that are granted their own agency. Knives don't rampage. It's still a reasonable assumption that cars are driven by someone.
!nataS pihsroW

Re: The Grumble Thread - No energy for a full on rant.
« Reply #11826 on: February 14, 2020, 01:50:14 pm »
True, but there are instances of drivers being incapacitated for one reason or another, making their subsequent actions involuntary. Despite what the courts might decide, I'm unconvinced of accidental stabbings.
We are making a New World (Paul Nash, 1918)

T42

  • Tea tank
Re: The Grumble Thread - No energy for a full on rant.
« Reply #11827 on: February 14, 2020, 02:12:39 pm »
They're just ever-so-carefully avoiding assumptions.  Even during their appeals for witnesses back in the 1950s the Beeb would speak of "a car that mounted the pavement" rather than someone driving onto it.

Except they don't do so elsewhere, it's mostly only motorised vehicles that are granted their own agency. Knives don't rampage. It's still a reasonable assumption that cars are driven by someone.

Trains, planes... I dare say that in the 19th century the broadsheets might mention people being mown down by the London-Manchester coach.
I've dusted all those old bottles and set them up straight.

Salvatore

  • Джон Спунър
    • Pics
Re: The Grumble Thread - No energy for a full on rant.
« Reply #11828 on: February 14, 2020, 03:43:08 pm »
They're just ever-so-carefully avoiding assumptions.  Even during their appeals for witnesses back in the 1950s the Beeb would speak of "a car that mounted the pavement" rather than someone driving onto it.

Except they don't do so elsewhere, it's mostly only motorised vehicles that are granted their own agency. Knives don't rampage. It's still a reasonable assumption that cars are driven by someone.

Trains, planes... I dare say that in the 19th century the broadsheets might mention people being mown down by the London-Manchester coach.

 You could blame not only the coach but also the horse


Dublin Evening Packet and Correspondent - Saturday 15 September 1838
Quote
et avec John, excellent lecteur de road-book, on s'en est sortis sans erreur

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: The Grumble Thread - No energy for a full on rant.
« Reply #11829 on: February 14, 2020, 04:11:52 pm »
I don't think we're in danger of Skynet becoming slef-aware anytime soon, my expenses app just interpreted a receipt from BA as being from Ui Yuul Neyhills for £10.

Makes it look like I'm going to see a spoon-bending medium on company time
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens

ian

  • fatuously disingenuous
    • The Suburban Survival Guide
Re: The Grumble Thread - No energy for a full on rant.
« Reply #11830 on: February 14, 2020, 04:35:21 pm »
True, but there are instances of drivers being incapacitated for one reason or another, making their subsequent actions involuntary. Despite what the courts might decide, I'm unconvinced of accidental stabbings.

They're still driving though. Saying someone drove a car into a house, doesn't imply intent, just that they were driving at the time. It's a mere statement of action. The one thing we do know is that a car didn't drive itself into the house, which this ongoing torture of language implies.

In a recent sad case near me, a car not only ran over and killed someone but then the car also left the scene.
!nataS pihsroW

Giraffe

  • I brake for Giraffes
Re: The Grumble Thread - No energy for a full on rant.
« Reply #11831 on: February 15, 2020, 08:37:04 am »
True, but there are instances of drivers being incapacitated for one reason or another, making their subsequent actions involuntary. Despite what the courts might decide, I'm unconvinced of accidental stabbings.

They're still driving though. Saying someone drove a car into a house, doesn't imply intent, just that they were driving at the time. It's a mere statement of action. The one thing we do know is that a car didn't drive itself into the house, which this ongoing torture of language implies.

In a recent sad case near me, a car not only ran over and killed someone but then the car also left the scene.
Yes, the car leaves the scene then the poor motorist is prosecuted for being taken away and helpless to stop it.
2x4: thick plank; 4x4: 2 of 'em.

Re: The Grumble Thread - No energy for a full on rant.
« Reply #11832 on: February 15, 2020, 09:11:02 am »
That journal article looks like it could be intersting, yes, I don't mind reviewing it. [Opens PDF] Oh no, what have I done? Goodbye morning...

I am increasingly just saying no to reviewing. If it is interesting it will appear and if not I have not wasted my life.
Also why are reviewers not paid when the journals make a profit?