Quotation Mark Abuse

Karen sends this in:

DEA LINKS 9 DEATHS TO BILOXI 'PILL MILL'
By ROBIN FITZGERALD

A "pill mill" run from a Biloxi doctor's office and pharmacy is to blame for nine fatal drug overdoses, a federal agent testified Thursday.

Co-conspirators amassed millions of dollars from the drug operation, attracting "droves and droves" of locals and out-of-state residents seeking narcotics, said DEA agent Terry Davis.

The Family Medical Center and Tran's Pharmacy on Division Street were considered "the place to go," said Davis. He described one incident involving several medications that shouldn't have been prescribed together as "a cocktail for danger."
...
The DEA agent, testifying 1½ hours, described what he and four other agents experienced while going undercover as patients. The clinic operated on a "cash only" basis, said Davis, and the doctors provided little or no examination. Davis said his first visit with Dr. Thomas Trieu was only a couple of minutes of "face to face" time.

Davis said some patients appeared to be legitimate, but some were "reeking of marijuana," said Davis, "and I suspected some were armed."

Now it's true the reporter is quoting people directly in those snippets. That doesn't mean it's not an annoying practice. If you're not going to quote a whole sentence, don't quote at all. Just fold those words into your own prose. The source is not going to accuse you of plagiarism, especially because you're giving attribution.

And Xavier sends along this picture from his new neighborhood, where law enforcement apparently has a bit of a Rodney Dangerfield problem. No respect! No respect!

Global Possessive Screwup

Nick S. sends this in--a shot of the interior of his new Lexus, which has a GPS in the dashboard.

Oops! That should say "its" display settings. "Its" is a possessive. "It's" is a contraction that means either "it is" or "it has."

We remember this by thinking of his, hers and its towels (those are for drying the dog, which has been spayed or neutered to prevent unwanted puppies).

Idiots!

No one ever said you had to be smart to be a criminal. Check out the phishing scam we just received:

After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund under section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Tax refund value is $189.60.

Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 6-9 days in order to IWP the data received. If u don't receive your refund within 9 business days from the original IRS mailing date shown, you can start a refund trace online.

If you distribute funds to other organization, your records must show wether they are exempt under section 497 (c) (15). In cases where the recipient org. is not exempt under section 497 (c) (15), you must have evidence the funds will be used for section 497 (c) (15) purposes.

If you distribute fund to individuals, you should keep case histories showing the recipient's name and address; the purpose of the award; the maner of section; and the realtionship of the recipient to any of your officers, directors, trustees, members, or major contributors.

To access the form for your tax refund, please click here [link removed]

This notification has been sent by the Internal Revenue Service, a bureau of the Department of the Treasury.

Sincerely Yours,

John Stewart
Director, Exempt. Organization
Rulings and Agreements Letter
Internal Revenue Service

The numskull who wrote this tried so hard to mimic government jargon, but couldn't resist slipping in a "u" for "you." So pathetic. Really.

Marriage: It's Not *That* Bad

This headline appears in the Seattle Times:

Man marries, receives 18-year assault sentence

We've been married 10 years now, and we don't find it anywhere near that bad.

Thanks to Wendy M. for the tip.

Happy 600th Post from SPOGG

SPOGG will be out of town for a few days, so we thought we'd leave you with this inspirational image, pilfered without shame from Gawker.com.

America's "offical" language? Only when she learns to spell.

Oh, the Difference One Letter Can Make

Oh, the difference one letter can make... (or two letters, if you can count better than SPOGG can).

Another good one from Ashleigh:

The scale of the operation suggests that Texas was ready. Dozens of heavily armed police went into the compound with an armored personal carrier. They met almost no resistance.

Read more...

A personnel carrier is used to transport employees. A personal carrier? Well, we're thinking that's the sort of thing best used to transport infants. And while it is a tough world out there for babies, it's not yet so tough that we need to walk them in armored Snuglis.

Who's Amused?

Ashleigh sends this in from her law office. It's an ad from a monthly newsletter that goes out to the entire Colorado Bar Association and--oops!--confuses "who's" with "whose."

They do sound exactly alike, but they're not interchangeable. "Whose" is a possessive pronoun. "Who's" is a contraction for who+is. If you can substitute who+is, then you know to use "who's" instead of "whose."

Commady from the Onion

Commas, Turning Up, Everywhere

Click the link above to learn, more, about the plague of commas, appearing in, our sentences.

Well, Isn't That Interesting

This comes from Science Daily (ignore the British spellings, please):

Intuitive Grammar Develops By Age Six, Say Researchers

ScienceDaily (Apr. 29, 2008) — Psychologists at the University of Liverpool have discovered that children as young as six are as adept at recognising possible verbs and their past tenses as adults.

In a study conducted by the University's Child Language Study Centre, children aged between six and nine were given sentences containing made-up verbs such as 'the duck likes to spling' and were asked to judge the acceptability of possible past tense forms. The study focused on the process the children used to come to their conclusions rather than whether their answers were right or wrong.

They found that the children's judgements followed a virtually identical pattern to those of linguistics students who took part in a similar study at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the US.

University of Liverpool psychologist, Ben Ambridge, said: "Previous studies have concentrated on getting children to produce past tense forms for made-up words. This study is unique in that the children were asked to judge the acceptability of different forms that we gave them.

"One of the main questions raised when looking at children's ability to pick up their native language is whether abstract symbolic rules or the use of memory and comparison affect how a child attributes past tenses to words.

Read more...

The Drudge Report

Slate today has a headline that says the Obama campaign won't "drudge" up old Clinton scandals.

To drudge means "to perform mean or servile tasks; to work hard or slavishly; to toil at laborious and distasteful work," the Oxford English Dictionary reports.

To dredge means "To collect and bring up (oysters, etc.) by means of a dredge; to bring up, fish up, or clear away or out (any object) from the bottom of a river, etc. Also fig."

They meant to use dredge in its figurative sense--to reach into the muck and pull up all that sordid old stuff.

We suspect the confusion comes from the popular "Drudge Report," a conservative blog that revels on the silty bottom of journalism and is considered a must-read by many in the business. How interesting that two words that sound alike are now being conflated elsewhere in the media.

It gives us a whole new word: "to drudge: v., to dig up unpleasant mud and sling it at a political opponent." It could be used by liberals and conservatives alike. Oh, joy.