Unintelligibly illiterate BBC News article link text

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 5:06 am

Bryn Mawr;1445023 wrote: From the Oxford English Dictionary :-

[no object] weep or cry noisily:

(as adjective bawling) bawling babies :-p
Well, I looked.The dogs did bark, the children screamed,

Up flew the windows all;

And every soul cried out, "Well done!"

As loud as he could bawl.

I can't see any entry under ball or balling which indicates crying out loudly. The entry is solely under bawl and bawling.

Here's the OED etymology for bawl: Found only from 15th cent. Probably

And, in passing, a fine example of the transience of slang...

1917 C. Mathewson Second Base Sloan xv. 203 You'll get bawled out when you pull a boner.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:39 pm

TÃ½r;1445040 wrote: What on earth does the full entry say? Mine's crated or I'd look. There should be quotes at least.

bawl: definition of bawl in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:41 pm

TÃ½r;1445054 wrote: Well, I looked.The dogs did bark, the children screamed,

Up flew the windows all;

And every soul cried out, "Well done!"

As loud as he could bawl.

I can't see any entry under ball or balling which indicates crying out loudly. The entry is solely under bawl and bawling.

Here's the OED etymology for bawl: Found only from 15th cent. Probably

And, in passing, a fine example of the transience of slang...

1917 C. Mathewson Second Base Sloan xv. 203 You'll get bawled out when you pull a boner.

I presume, therefore, that the article has been changed.

The usage when I looked was bawling

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:59 pm

Bryn Mawr;1445200 wrote: I presume, therefore, that the article has been changed.

The usage when I looked was bawlingI clicked the link and it's a perfectly respectable site. It does say it's not the OED though.

Our confusion arose when I asked what balling meant and you looked up the different spelling.

On a side note, my online access to OED from home is through Bristol City Libraries. As is the 19th century newspapers. What they don't have is Nexis, sadly.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 3:07 pm

TÃ½r;1445212 wrote: I clicked the link and it's a perfectly respectable site. It does say it's not the OED though.

Our confusion arose when I asked what balling meant and you looked up the different spelling.

On a side note, my online access to OED from home is through Bristol City Libraries. As is the 19th century newspapers. What they don't have is Nexis, sadly.

My confusion was looking at the article you linked to and looking up the spelling I found there - I usually prefer to go to the source text

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 3:56 pm

Bryn Mawr;1445217 wrote: My confusion was looking at the article you linked to and looking up the spelling I found there - I usually prefer to go to the source text

The source text of the stories which arrive in this thread are anything but stable. My quotes are copy/paste accurate at the time I'm quoting from them.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:31 am

"Just after 14:00 his mobile phone began ringing off the hook"? I'd take that to mean a faulty landline, not one that is being called incessantly. If a phone's off the hook it can't be connected to by an outside caller, it will respond silently as being engaged or it might divert the call.

The entire notion of a mobile phone having a hook is nonsensical anyway, the nearest equivalent is being powered down or engaged.

That's almost as illiterate as using decimate to mean destroyed.

BBC News - China's internet vigilantes and the 'human flesh search engine'

eta: I checked the OED, it offers a recent Americanism: " orig. U.S. to ring off the hook : (of a telephone) to ring incessantly, esp. because of a large number of incoming calls". How utterly meaningless. I still maintain it's almost as illiterate as using decimate to mean destroyed. Decimate doesn't mean destroyed and a phone off the hook can't ever ring. The phrase certainly has no place in the BBC Style Guide.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Sat Feb 01, 2014 2:55 pm

The story...Smoke grenades were thrown as hundreds of Sunderland football fans were escorted through Newcastle city centre ahead of the Tyne-Wear derby match.

The two sets of fans were kept apart by a heavy police presence around St James' Park. Northumbria Police made ten arests - three as part of a planned operation before the match, five at the ground and two after the match.

BBC News - Smoke grenades thrown before Tyne-Wear derby match

The link text...

Fans hope for 'derby to be proud of'

One despairs of the website editing sometimes.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:13 am

The most appallingly inaccurate link... "Stay with UK, Cameron tells Scotland".

That's not what the story says at all. The actually headline is "Scottish independence: We want you to stay, Cameron will say". The story starts: David Cameron is to urge Scotland to vote against independence in September's referendum, saying: "We want you to stay."

The deliberately misleading use of tell in the link is described in the OED: "To order or direct (a person) to do something; to bid, to request authoritatively". Even so prattish a nurk as our current Prime Minister wouldn't do that in these circumstances. The BBC is stirring a pot by claiming he did. Bad cess to the editor who allowed the misleading link to be published. "Stay with UK, Cameron urges Scotland" would have been accurate and the same length. "Stay with UK, Cameron tells Scotland" is a direct grotesque lie.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:31 am

What are these people doing, for goodness' sake?

What does "Mother slashed TV star's daughter" mean?

In any sane coherent sense, the daughter of a TV star has been criminally injured by the TV star's mother, or just possibly her own mother, with a sharp blade.

Evidently not. This is "mother" meaning female with offspring. It covers around a third of the world's adult population. What possible relevance has it, other than to imply the sensational but in this case untrue suggestion of familial discord worthy of a Greek Tragedy? What's wrong, in this instance, with the word "woman"?

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:41 am

TÃ½r;1447389 wrote: What are these people doing, for goodness' sake?

What does "Mother slashed TV star's daughter" mean?

In any sane coherent sense, the daughter of a TV star has been criminally injured by the TV star's mother, or wrongly but just possibly her own mother, with a sharp blade.

Evidently not. The is "mother" meaning female with offspring. It covers around a third of the adult population. What possible relevance has it, other than to imply the sensational coherent but in this case untrue meaning? What's wrong, in this instance, with the word "woman"?

Well, she appears to be a mother, and the reporter felt the need to impress us with that point, as later in the article it states that the judge reduced the sentence by a year in consideration of her children. No really sure what difference one year will make, but there you go. If she wasn't a mother, she'd do six years instead of five.

It appears that other news outlets may have agreed with you.

Their headlines refer to the attacker as "woman", "Female clubber", and ""Clubber"

So perhaps one should read, "Mother Clubber" ?

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:49 am

LarsMac;1447390 wrote: Well, she appears to be a mother, and the reporter felt the need to impress us with that point, as later in the article it states that the judge reduced the sentence by a year in consideration of her children. No really sure what difference one year will make, but there you go. If she wasn't a mother, she'd do six years instead of five.

I'm sure the reporter had no hand at all in composing the link text.

All the other offsite reports link with, for example, Clubber, Woman, Woman, Female Clubber. Only the BBC confuses the entire issue with "Mother".

BBC News - Tommy Walsh's daughter's nightclub attacker jailed is the linked story, for anyone who's not seen it.

... and how, as an aside, can the words "Tommy Walsh" and "TV star" reasonably appear in the same sentence?

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:55 am

I guess my question is this:

Is it relevant to the story, at all? And is it only published because she attacked an apparent celebrity?

Did she attack the person because she was the daughter of a celebrity?

Do other people who slash non-celebrities get similar sentences?

It seems far more relevant to the story that she was a mother of two than that she attacked the daughter of Tommy Walsh.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:15 am

A more interesting piece of poor editing can be found in this article : Teeth and jaw are from 'earliest Europeans'

The results fit with stone tool discoveries that had suggested modern people were in Europe more than 40,000 years ago. Now, scientists have the direct physical remains of Homo sapiens to prove it.

It confirms also that modern people overlapped in Europe with their evolutionary cousins, the Neanderthals, for an extended period.

These humans went extinct shortly afterwards, and the latest discoveries will raise once again the questions over Homo sapiens' possible role in their relatives' demise.

We are left for a moment to stop and think which are "These humans"

Apparently "These Humans" are the Neanderthals, but the transition could have been a bit smoother, I think.

The article flip flops between "Homo Sapiens" and "Modern Humans" While calling Neanderthals, "Humans" and "Neanderthals"

It would have been much more clear if they had stuck to "Neanderthals" all along when referring to that sub-species.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm

Someone hasn't given this headline a great deal of thought. Who proof reads them ?

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Great tits cope well with warming

I'm sure they meant well but I had to stifle a snigger

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:29 pm

Here is one to add to the collection:

BBC News - Boy, 14, charged with shooting dead bystander on New York City bus

I didn't know it was illegal to shoot dead people.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:24 am

Never in my life have I seen the word "stowaway" used as a verb, until today in a BBC link text:

"Migrants stowaway on lorry axles".

Migrants may perhaps stow away on lorry axles, Mr BBC Sub-Editor. I stow, you stow, he or she stows. Where does he stow himself? He stows away on a lorry axle. Your implied singular, "He stowaways on a lorry axle", is utterly faux English. Don't do it again.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Tue May 13, 2014 12:23 pm

Might I note in passing that a link text of "Shark 'graveyard' found off Angola", when it in fact refers to the filming of a single shark carcase on a one-square-kilometre surveyed patch of the sea floor also found to host three dead rays, is bafflingly false.Footage recorded by the oil and gas industry shows the carcasses of four large marine creatures in a small patch of sea floor off the coast of Angola. Around the dead whale shark and three deceased rays, scavengers flocked to the food bonanza.

BBC News - Deep-sea 'graveyard' reveals fate of dead ocean giants

I may add that I was also distressed by the link news that "Spot checks into OAP hospital care". Poor Spot.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Tue May 13, 2014 1:08 pm

TÃ½r;1454007 wrote: Might I note in passing that a link text of "Shark 'graveyard' found off Angola", when it in fact refers to the filming of a single shark carcase on a one-square-kilometre surveyed patch of the sea floor also found to host three dead rays, is bafflingly false.Footage recorded by the oil and gas industry shows the carcasses of four large marine creatures in a small patch of sea floor off the coast of Angola. Around the dead whale shark and three deceased rays, scavengers flocked to the food bonanza.

BBC News - Deep-sea 'graveyard' reveals fate of dead ocean giants

I may add that I was also distressed by the link news that "Spot checks into OAP hospital care". Poor Spot.

Poor Spot indeed, that's where he went, I guess he must be in his 90's by now.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 4:40 am

Woe to you, damnably and unforgivably pig-ignorant editors of the BBC News website. Woe and thrice woe. Just how low can you sink?

I quote...

"If your computer does not run Windows, stop right here. This does not affect you".

BBC News - How to defend yourself against the 'two-week' attack

That's not what you mean at all, you overpaid twerps. I run Windows on a Linux desktop. Mac users run Windows.

I refer the thread to Microsoft Corp. v. Lindows.com, Inc.

As early as 2002, a court rejected Microsoft's claims, stating that Microsoft had used the term "windows" to describe graphical user interfaces before the product, Windows, was ever released, and the windowing technique had already been implemented by Xerox and Apple many years before.

What you actually mean is "If your computer does not run Microsoft Windows, stop right here. This does not affect you".

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:54 am

This is from a so-called-news article, not that the article carries any news...

"Labour MPs in Liverpool have criticised Ed Miliband about he posed with a copy of the Sun newspaper."

What form of sub-intellectual failed-GCSE English is that sentence supposed to represent? Does nobody at the BBC actually reed what appears on their news website?

BBC News - Labour MPs criticise Ed Miliband for posing with Sun

eta: "works similar to sticky tape" is equally bug-eyed illiterate, from the link toZoologists measure the pulling force of a frog's tongue, revealing it can be up to three times the animal's weight and works similar to sticky tape.

BBC News - Frog's tongue 'can lift three times own body weight'

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:03 am

I despair sometimes. What BBC wallah allowed this quote onto its web news pages...A 23-year-old woman returning home from a night out in central Manchester was dragged off the street and raped, Greater Manchester Police (GMP) said. [...] Det Insp Mike Gladwin said: "She has suffered an incomprehensibly distressing experience."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... r-28080162

Incomprehensibly distressing in what way, for goodness' sake? The experience was distressing for all too comprehensible a reason. In what possible circumstance can "incomprehensibly" be an appropriate adverb in that sentence?

Is nobody on the BBC news website capable of sub-editing? "Incomprehensibly" is as outrageous in this context as "unbelievably" or "incredibly" would have been, both of which crop up far too often in inappropriate places.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:11 am

TÃ½r;1458684 wrote: I despair sometimes. What BBC wallah allowed this quote onto its web news pages..

Because it was a.............. quote?

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:21 am

Bruv;1458687 wrote: Because it was a.............. quote?

Unless the BBC was deliberately attempting to cast Det Insp Mike Gladwin in an unfortunate light, a competent sub-editor would have spared him the exposure. Or the competent sub-editor could have just substituted "unimaginably" which is what I expect the Det Insp was groping for, though I do feel the entire concept of "unimaginably" is bogus hyperbole rolled out far too regularly in statements like this when a formulaic attempt to express sympathy is made in a statement to the press.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 6:10 am

You can hardly blame the BBC News for reporting facts.

If they were mis-reporting famous speeches there would be hell to pay......"They think it's all over.....but theres 10 seconds left".... "We will fight them on the beaches, as long as we dont get our feet wet".......... "I have a dream, more of a nightmare, I shouldn't have eaten that cheese"

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 7:41 pm

One niggle that I have with TV & Radio presenters these days is the annoyingly increasing trend to pronounce 'year' as 'yur'. It makes me cringe every time I hear it.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Sun Jul 06, 2014 9:37 am

There is an outrageous misuse of trimmed text today in both the link text and title of the article about Tebbit. The link reeds Tebbit: 'Establishment protected' and the title is Lord Tebbit: 'The establishment was to be protected'. The actual sentence they've torn the quoted words from is "At that time most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected." which carries a totally different meaning to what was implied in the link and title. the BBC has sensationalized yet again in the style of the worst excesses of the red-top papers and it should be utterly ashamed of itself.

As for Tebbit's implication that the Establishment is no longer protected, it rather depends on where one draws the line. Your average peer of the realm is up for grabs these days where in the 80s he'd not have been, I agree. But I still reckon there are two categories of person who are immune from police investigation. The first category is all the acknowledged descendants of the late Queen Mother regardless of who fathered them. The second category is all ex-prime-ministers. I would be astonished if anyone from either category were publicly referred to the DPP on the basis of allegations of sexual abuse investigated by the police, despite the long-standing personal accounts of such abuse on the Internet.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:53 pm

Edited quotes can be very misleading. If you know the story of the case in question your mind automatically adjusts itself to make sense of it, and you tend not to even notice anything wrong. However, to someone who is unaware of what the history of the story is, a trimmed quote may take on an entirely different meaning.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:34 am

FourPart;1459364 wrote: Edited quotes can be very misleading. If you know the story of the case in question your mind automatically adjusts itself to make sense of it, and you tend not to even notice anything wrong. However, to someone who is unaware of what the history of the story is, a trimmed quote may take on an entirely different meaning. Oh how true !!!!

eg... ' Hero's daughter hauled before the courts'........ errr no actually. It should have read.... ' Woman refuses police caution and elects to be tried by Magistrates'... there was no ' hauling' about It.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 7:44 am

Co-incidentally there was a phone in on 5-Live last night, called "Grammarphone", which focused on points of grammar, both in the written & the spoken word.

A lot of the points raised were somewhat pedantic, but many of the others highlighted how much the basic rules of grammar are being abused. One of the questions referred to which grated most, spoken grammatical errors or written ones. Personally I think it's the written one, because not only does that highlight the most basic of errors (eg. Their, There & They're), which wouldn't be noticed in the spoken word, but because when writing there is more time to think about what to say & how to say it, whereas when speaking it has to be formed on the fly.

Needless to say, the "Grocer's Apostrophe" came up a few times as well.

theia · Post by **theia** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:05 am

FourPart;1459386 wrote: Co-incidentally there was a phone in on 5-Live last night, called "Grammarphone", which focused on points of grammar, both in the written & the spoken word.

A lot of the points raised were somewhat pedantic, but many of the others highlighted how much the basic rules of grammar are being abused. One of the questions referred to which grated most, spoken grammatical errors or written ones. Personally I think it's the written one, because not only does that highlight the most basic of errors (eg. Their, There & They're), which wouldn't be noticed in the spoken word, but because when writing there is more time to think about what to say & how to say it, whereas when speaking it has to be formed on the fly.

Needless to say, the "Grocer's Apostrophe" came up a few times as well.

"Should of" is a pet hate of mine. I agree that it's the written ones that grate. I probably wouldn't notice should of when it's spoken because it's similar to should have. But then, I was schooled in the old days when grammar was important...it probably won't be in the future. And hey, I've begun the last two sentences with "but" and "and" :-5

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:17 am

theia;1459390 wrote: "Should of" is a pet hate of mine. I agree that it's the written ones that grate. I probably wouldn't notice should of when it's spoken because it's similar to should have. But then, I was schooled in the old days when grammar was important...it probably won't be in the future. And hey, I've begun the last two sentences with "but" and "and" :-5
The 'should of' one is one of my pet hates as well, although it's not so noticeable in the spoken word. I also remember having it drummed into me about never to use 'And' or 'But' at the beginning of a sentence. So much for Biblical Grammar.

The thing is, I don't think they even include such things in schools any more. I think they take the modernistic approach that language is constantly evolving & therefore grammar should not be that important. Sure enough, the language is constantly evolving, but the basic foundations have to remain the same.

Another one of my pet hates is using established brand names to describe generic terms, such as 'Hoovering the carpet'. Fine, if your vacuum cleaner is made by Hoover, but otherwise it should be something like 'Vacuuming the carpet', or an iPhone to describe an MP3 player - which is even more ironic, as iPhones don't play MP3s - they have to be converted to a different format.

theia · Post by **theia** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:24 am

FourPart;1459392 wrote: The 'should of' one is one of my pet hates as well, although it's not so noticeable in the spoken word. I also remember having it drummed into me about never to use 'And' or 'But' at the beginning of a sentence. So much for Biblical Grammar.

The thing is, I don't think they even include such things in schools any more. I think they take the modernistic approach that language is constantly evolving & therefore grammar should not be that important. Sure enough, the language is constantly evolving, but the basic foundations have to remain the same.

Another one of my pet hates is using established brand names to describe generic terms, such as 'Hoovering the carpet'. Fine, if your vacuum cleaner is made by Hoover, but otherwise it should be something like 'Vacuuming the carpet', or an iPhone to describe an MP3 player - which is even more ironic, as iPhones don't play MP3s - they have to be converted to a different format.

I don't remember the reason for not using "but" and "and". Do you?

Actually I'm guilty of "hoovering" and mine is a Dyson

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:26 am

theia;1459393 wrote: I don't remember the reason for not using "but" and "and". Do you?

Actually I'm guilty of "hoovering" and mine is a Dyson

They are conjunctives and should only be used to join two clauses. Obviously, at the start of a sentence they are not joining anything.

theia · Post by **theia** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:39 am

Bryn Mawr;1459395 wrote: They are conjunctives and should only be used to join two clauses. Obviously, at the start of a sentence they are not joining anything.

Thank you, Bryn. I'm ashamed to say that I'd forgotten all about conjunctives and clauses.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:05 am

theia;1459396 wrote: Thank you, Bryn. I'm ashamed to say that I'd forgotten all about conjunctives and clauses.

I nearly wrote "Because they're conjunctives" but everyone knows that you should never start a sentence with because because because is a conjunctive :wah:

theia · Post by **theia** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:10 am

Bryn Mawr;1459405 wrote: I nearly wrote "Because they're conjunctives" but everyone knows that you should never start a sentence with because because because is a conjunctive :wah:

Now that is clever, but (:wah:) would your 3 becauses have been underlined in red at school?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:15 am

theia;1459406 wrote: Now that is clever, but (:wah:) would your 3 becauses have been underlined in red at school?

Unlikely - because the teacher wouldn't have been able to read them.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:17 am

That is why we need more research surrounding the in-affectiveness of antibiotics.

I thought conjunctives was an illness beaten long ago.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:17 am

"Because" is a word that should never be used at the beginning of a sentence.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:19 am

FourPart;1459410 wrote: "Because" is a word that should never be used at the beginning of a sentence.

Neat

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:25 am

Bryn Mawr;1459405 wrote: I nearly wrote "Because they're conjunctives" but everyone knows that you should never start a sentence with because because because is a conjunctive :wah:
However, there is this

Beginning a Sentence with Because

Somehow, the notion that one should not begin a sentence with the subordinating conjunction because retains a mysterious grip on people's sense of writing proprieties. This might come about because a sentence that begins with because could well end up a fragment if one is not careful to follow up the "because clause" with an independent clause.

Because e-mail now plays such a huge role in our communications industry.

When the "because clause" is properly subordinated to another idea (regardless of the position of the clause in the sentence), there is absolutely nothing wrong with it:

Because e-mail now plays such a huge role in our communications industry, the postal service would very much like to see it taxed in some manner.
(Sourced from Conjunctions)

theia · Post by **theia** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:43 pm

FourPart;1459415 wrote: However, there is this

(Sourced from Conjunctions)

That page also qualifies the usage of "but" and "and" at the beginning of a sentence.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:46 pm

FourPart;1459415 wrote: However, there is this

(Sourced from Conjunctions)

That makes a huge amount of sense.

Me, I'm a heathen and see my original "Because they're conjunctives" as acceptable on the grounds that it's subordinated to the original question and a continuation of that sentence.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:01 am

When I see a link with the words Untaxed foreign cars 'cost millions', what information can I glean? That an untaxed foreign car is an expensive item whose price is expressed in at least in seven figures.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:54 am

What do we make of Lohan 'will not miss London shows' as a BBC news link?

My sole reaction was that Lindsay Lohan had been banned from entry to the UK because of Californian criminal convictions and had retaliated with a press statement saying the London fashion shows were trivially irrelevant to A-list celebs and she couldn't care less.

I was, of course, mistaken, but the link is so utterly ambiguous and vague that it was a fair interpretation for someone who knows sod-all about the woman. She is, it would seem, a stage actor among other things, and has promised to turn up to all her London performances - something most actors manage without needing to say so in advance.

BBC News - Lindsay Lohan vows 'not to miss any London shows'

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 4:15 am

TÃ½r;1459718 wrote: What do we make of Lohan 'will not miss London shows' as a BBC news link?

My sole reaction was that Lindsay Lohan had been banned from entry to the UK because of Californian criminal convictions and had retaliated with a press statement saying the London fashion shows were trivially irrelevant to A-list celebs and she couldn't care less.

I was, of course, mistaken, but the link is so utterly ambiguous and vague that it was a fair interpretation for someone who knows sod-all about the woman. She is, it would seem, a stage actor among other things, and has promised to turn up to all her London performances - something most actors manage without needing to say so in advance.

BBC News - Lindsay Lohan vows 'not to miss any London shows'

Your reaction says you appear to know more than "someone who knows sod-all about the woman"

You know a lot more than me, that's for sure...........mind you.....I could care less.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 5:33 am

Bruv;1459721 wrote: Your reaction says you appear to know more than "someone who knows sod-all about the woman"What I meant by that is not knowing she had ever acted. I suspect it's central to her fame that she's acted. I plead both ignorance and a total lack of interest. She's notorious to readers of El Reg, just as Paris Hilton is notorious to readers of El Reg. It's a site I visit regularly.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:14 am

TÃ½r;1459723 wrote: What I meant by that is not knowing she had ever acted. I suspect it's central to her fame that she's acted. I plead both ignorance and a total lack of interest. She's notorious to readers of El Reg, just as Paris Hilton is notorious to readers of El Reg. It's a site I visit regularly.

What should I make of a sentence that includes a reference to El Reg ?

Visit Google and research further ?

Oh!!! The Register...............it's a joke.....right?

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:34 am

Bruv;1459727 wrote: Oh!!! The Register...............it's a joke.....right?

Lordy no - when did I ever joke.

Lohan at The Register