This page includes my letters to newspaper editors and others, not all of which were published.
Go Home.
Table of contents for all letters
Letters involving the following topics (in chronological order within category):
Civil rights:
. . . Letters involving civil rights (Law10)
Communicating
. . . Does a red light mean "Stop" or does it mean "Go"?
. . . Foot and mouth casualties: dogs next? ___ Heartburn Remedies re bad advice.
. . . Lead poisoning via candle smoke ___ Myth that exercise reduces weight
. . . Who exactly is undeserving of health care?
Humor:
. . . Fish-length regulations piece re CBC Radio! ___ Harry Truman -- Leonardo diCaprio Connection!
. . . New moniker for Sanata Monica? re Monica Lewinsky!
Language usage:
. . . Follow-up to language-usage program
Religion: Links to many letters.
Risk:
. . . Another cell-phone risk? ___ Avalanche at Kangiqsualujjuaq
. . . Driving Diana re Princess Diana crash and safety negligence by her and France.
. . . Safe use of language in flying. English-to-English translation problem: 582 dead.
. . . Thetis: a 1939 sub disaster. A toothpick could have saved lives. ___ Was EgyptAir 990 a suicide flight?
Sports subsidies:
. . . Hockey Night in Kanata re subsidizing millionaire hockey parasites.
Text of letters
Civil rights:
Title as published: ?
Editorial changes made: ?
Sent: 22 May 98. Published: ?.
To: Letters Editor, Ottawa Citizen, and Letters Editor, Globe & Mail <letters@GlobeAndMail.ca>
Sent: 25 May 98. Published: ?.
To: Letters Editor, Globe & Mail <letters@GlobeAndMail.ca>
Proposed title: "David Levine Should Stay"
C:\Up\DavidL.doc
(391 words, incl.title lines.)
With a little bit of logic and a basic allegiance to open and equitable democracy, it is easy and proper to conclude that David Levine should be retained as the rightful appointee to be the CEO of the Ottawa Hospital system.
He was found to be the best-qualified candidate based on an equitably established competition. The fact that he ran as a candidate for a political party that aims to break up Canada and that he may or may not still hold such beliefs is not relevant to his duties. Just as importantly, such beliefs, or political action based on them, are not illegal under our Constitution; otherwise, one might argue that it is illegal for Lucien Bouchard to be Premier of Quebec, on the basis, for example, that he is a traitor to Canada.
Some argue that if a majority of the public object to the appointment, then it would be undemocratic for him to retain the office. I disagree. Democracy does not mean that the government should carry out the will of the majority of the public. Instead, and very importantly, it means that the government should carry out the will of the majority of the duly elected and appointed representatives of the public.
I am strongly opposed to the separatist cause, believing that it borders on treason. However, my allegiance to democratic principles is even stronger than such opposition. I fully support the retention of Mr. Levine. I think that he will be an excellent asset to Ottawa's health-care system and that he will have not the slightest intent of injecting any separatist influence into his work. It appears to me that he is too professional to want to do that. He will also be aware that his actions will be under close scrutiny.
If one is opposed to separatists holding public office, do not fight the appointment of David Levine. He is not being appointed to be a separatist. Instead, use your democratic rights to fight separatism. One way might be, for example, to have it classified as akin to treason and have it outlawed, just as we have outlawed racial discrimination. Fighting the appointment of Mr. Levine will not help in that battle. Instead, it might contribute to losing it and to undermining democracy!
Sent: 28 Jan 99
To: Letters Editor, Globe and Mail
Subject: Ban the OlympicsC:\IOC\BanIOC
(About 583 words to follow.)
It is not enough to replace a few members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) or to arrest a few people for bribery. Canada should lead the way in not supporting any activities, athletes or facilities in support of the Olympic Games, and should require that the Games cannot be staged in Canada or involve Canadian athletes anywhere if drug testing is used.
Apart from allegations of bribery and wasteful spending of public funds, the primary reason for a ban is an ethical one. The IOC, along with the apparent collusion of Canada, subjects athletes to drug tests. In my opinion, this contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to privacy and issues such as validity of evidence, its interpretation, and its potential misuse (of which there are rumors) that go beyond any redeeming notwithstanding considerations. But, what if an athlete were to take a performance-enhancing drug? So what? Don't we want the fastest, not the second fastest, to win the Gold? Otherwise, what does the Gold Medal signify? Best of the also-rans? One of the fearsome drugs tested for as a restricted substance is included in coffee and soft drinks. Isn't it a bit ironic that a major sponsor of the Olympics sells such a "drug", a drug (caffeine) that is quite legal, by the way? I think that it would (or certainly should) be a major scandal if, for example, a Nobel Prize were retracted because it was found that the researcher had recklessly imbibed one too many cups of coffee. Is our Prime Minister subject to drug tests? Is his job not as important as that of a high-jumper? If the IOC is so worried about so-called unfair advantage, I suggest that it not allow athletes to practice for perhaps one month before the competition. If one competitor practices more than another, surely, using similar logic, he will have an unfair advantage.A related reason is that Canada, in abrogating such a right to privacy, is helping a foreign agency to infringe upon Canada's sovereignty. Would Canada hand over such rights to any other foreign power?
Thirdly, the Olympics provides unwarranted attention and prestige to trivial pursuits such as who can run fastest, thereby serving as a bad role model for young people. Why not just leave it to private TV and its hockey and wrestling? That would be true enough to the Olympic spirit anyway, for what it is worth.
Finally, why are cities allowed to spend millions of dollars on Olympic activities, always in wasteful ways? Witness the difficulty of building a stadium in Montreal because its promoters seemed to be unaware that snow can be heavy! Studies have shown that, at least in the USA, the building of stadiums leads to net economic losses to communities in 85% of cases. How much do taxpayers still owe on Montreal's stadium, as-yet unfinished after 22 years and $2.4 billion in expenditures? $400 million?
When you arrive at the office tomorrow are you facing a drug test? Why not? Isn't your job as important as that of a snow-boarder? If you continue to support the Olympics, you probably will be, and soon, at the expense of your own taxes. Don't even think about eating sesame-seed buns if you worry about drugs that are not quite as legal as coffee; Big Brother might not approve!
I might not be quite so critical if the IOC were as diligent about testing for bribery as it is for coffee!
Sent: 8 Feb 99
To: Letters Editor, Ottawa Citizen , 7 Feb 99
Subject: Ban the Olympics Ban the Olympic GamesC:\IOC\BanIOC1
(About 718 words to follow.)
It is not enough to replace a few members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) or to arrest a few promoters for bribery. Canada should lead the way in not supporting any activities, athletes or facilities in support of the Olympic Games, and should require that they cannot be staged in Canada or involve Canadian athletes anywhere if drug testing is used.
Apart from bribery and wasteful spending of public funds, the primary reason for a ban is an ethical one. The IOC, with the apparent collusion of Canada, subjects athletes to drug tests. In my opinion, this contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to invasion of privacy and issues such as validity of evidence, its interpretation, and its potential misuse (of which there are rumors) that go beyond any redeeming notwithstanding considerations. But, what if an athlete were to take a performance-enhancing drug? So what? Don't we want the fastest to win? Otherwise, what does the Medal signify? Best of the also-rans?
One drug tested for is included in coffee and soft drinks. Isn't it ironic that a major sponsor of the Olympics sells such a drug (caffeine), one that is quite legal? I think that it would (or certainly should) be a major scandal if, for example, a Nobel Prize were retracted because the researcher had recklessly imbibed an extra cup of coffee. Is our Prime Minister subject to drug tests? Is his job not as important as that of a high-jumper? If the IOC is so worried about so-called unfair advantage, I suggest that it not allow athletes to practice for one month prior to competing, to ensure that one athlete does not practice more than another (and thereby "cheat").
Canada, in abrogating such a right to privacy, is helping a foreign agency to infringe upon Canada's sovereignty. Would Canada cede such rights to any other foreign power?
The Olympics provides unwarranted attention and prestige to pursuits such as who can run fastest, thereby serving as a bad role model. Why not just leave it to private TV; it already broadcasts more than enough sports? Some who favor testing argue that it is to protect the health of athletes. I doubt that the IOC has any such interest. Why the interest in only athletes? Under that logic, one should subject all citizens to drug tests. No, the real problem is the totally unwarranted importance and financial spin-offs associated with the Olympics. Reduce the prestige accorded the Games and it would be less tempting for athletes to take drugs. Many of these drugs are legal and harmless in any case. We could improve society by voting against public funding of all related sports facilities and by boycotting its sponsors.
Why are cities allowed to spend millions of dollars on Olympic activities, always wastefully? Witness the difficulty of building a stadium in Montreal because its promoters seemed unaware that snow can be heavy! Studies have shown that building stadiums leads to net economic losses to communities in 85% of cases. How much do taxpayers still owe on Montreal's stadium, unfinished after 22 years and $2.4 billion in expenditures? $400 million? And we are short of hospital beds? One major concern of IOC members is not the ethics of bribery, but the shame of having to stay in a hotel that is rated as only four stars instead of five -- at your expense!Continued support of the Olympics and its drug testing sets a dangerous example for society in adding support to the idea of drug testing in the workplace. Would you trust the IOC to test you for drugs and decide that you should be fired from your job, without any recourse to police, courts, or independent audit? Don't even think about eating sesame-seed buns if you worry about drugs that are not quite as legal as coffee; the Big Brother that could be in your future might not approve!
On a positive note, the almost dictatorial powers of the IOC may be reduced by athletes suing the IOC for damages under European labor laws if IOC's drug sanctions harm the ability of athletes to earn a living.
I might not be quite so critical if the IOC were as diligent about testing
for bribery as it is for coffee and cough drops!
Sent 30 Mar 99
Letter to Editor, Globe and Mail
C:\Up\YugoWar 30-Mar-99
War-free in Yugoslavia?
(About 248 words to follow.)
Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy stated last weekend that Canada was not at war with Yugoslavia; instead, we were on a humanitarian mission. I seriously question what dictionary he is employing. Canada with NATO has clearly launched a military aggression against Yugoslavia without any excuse that it is in self-defence. By definition, this is "war".
I wonder if our armed forces have considered the following frightening prospect. A Canadian enters Yugoslavia and bombs a military installation in Belgrade. Consider, for example, what a shopper in the Rideau Centre in Ottawa would feel like if a cruise missile hit the National Defence Headquarters across the street. If we caught the perpetrator, would we not treat him as a terrorist, and rightfully so? Consider that our pilot is shot down, captured by police, and charged as a terrorist. "But", replies the soldier, "I am a prisoner of war and expect to be treated according to the terms of the Geneva Convention". "You make me laugh" replies the policeman, "your country has not declared war, so the Geneva Convention does not apply. You, as a terrorist, are facing life in prison, or execution if you have killed anyone, civilian or military".
The NATO allies will garner no respect for the observance of international law by having already violated the conventions of the United Nations, NATO itself, the Geneva Convention, and international laws against terrorism.
A bombing by any other name is just as sour, even if it is not in Oklahoma.
Sent: 2 Apr 99
Letter to Editor, Ottawa Citizen
C:\Up\YugoWar 2-Apr-99
War-free in Yugoslavia
(About 249 words to follow.)
Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy stated last weekend that Canada was not at war with Yugoslavia; instead, we were on a humanitarian mission. I seriously question what dictionary he is employing. Canada with NATO has clearly launched a military aggression against Yugoslavia without any excuse that it is in self-defence. By definition, this is "war".
I wonder if our armed forces have considered the following frightening prospect. A Canadian enters Yugoslavia and bombs a military installation in Belgrade. Consider, for example, what a shopper in the Rideau Centre would feel like if a cruise missile hit the National Defence Headquarters across the street. If we caught the perpetrator, would we not treat him as a terrorist, and rightfully so? Consider that our pilot is shot down, captured by Serbian police, and charged as a terrorist. "But", replies the soldier, "I am a prisoner of war and expect to be treated according to the terms of the Geneva Convention". "You make me laugh" replies the policeman, "your country has not declared war, so the Geneva Convention does not apply. You, as a terrorist, are facing life in prison at best, or execution if you have killed anyone, civilian or military".
The NATO allies will garner no respect for the observance of international law by having already violated the conventions of the United Nations, NATO itself, the Geneva Convention, and international laws against terrorism.A bombing by any other name is just as sour, even if it is not in Oklahoma!
Sent: 9 Apr 99
Letter to Editor, Globe and Mail
C:\Up\YugoWar3 9-Apr-99
Is Canada at War? (Could the question be any simpler?)
(About 217 words to follow.)
I have been unable to find answers to some simple and important questions. Is Canada "at war" with Yugoslavia? If so, is it a war that is "declared" to be so for purposes of the Geneva Convention and the rights of prisoners of war? If not, does the Geneva Convention apply? If it does not apply, is it not optimistic to expect that NATO soldiers captured by Yugoslavia would be treated as prisoners of war rather as terrorists? What is the wording of this declaration, if it exists? Is this a military secret?
On or about 27 March 99 Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy stated that Canada was not "at war" with Yugoslavia; instead, we were on a "humanitarian mission". That implies that we are not even at war, much less a "declared" one. What dictionary is he using? Canada with NATO has clearly launched a military aggression against Yugoslavia without any excuse that it is in self-defence. By definition, this is a war of aggression, however noble in purpose it might be claimed to be.
If I were serving in the NATO forces near Yugoslavia, I would be very anxious, if not fearful, to know the answers to these questions, even though the news media seem to have ignored them, in spite of massive "war" coverage.
Humor:
Sent: 31 Mar 99
To: Morning Smile, Globe and Mail
Rumours are that the city of Santa Monica, CA, being very conscious of its image, is debating changing its name to Santa Lewinsky. Why? It does not want to appear to be in a first-name relationship with "that woman". Hence, a new moniker for Monica, so to speak.
Sent: 19 May 99
To: Bygone Books, Burlington, Vt. bygone@together.net
From: Wayne Paulson C:\Up\Bygone.doc 19-May-99
Harry Truman -- Leonardo diCaprio Connection!I was in your delightful shop about three weeks ago and am finally sending the message that I promised re Harry Truman's second name.
If you recall, Iwas the bearded one who ventured a flippant guess that the mystery portrait above your desk was that of Leonardo diCaprio. Of course, that was an error -- a Titanic one at that! So I then surmised that it must be that of Alfred Lord Tennyson. To collect on the gigantic jackpot in this venture gives me a good excuse to drop in again when I am next in Burlington, probably next year.
Should I assume that, if Leonardo was asked what his astrological sign was that he would, of course, reply "diCaprioCorn!"?
What follows [at Follow-up to language-usage program ] is a letter that I sent to the local CBC radio station.
Sent: 11 June 99
To: Ontario Today, CBC Radio 1
Re.: Fish-length regulations piece by Cathy Alex via Dave Stephens on 10 Jun 99
C:\Up\FishCut.rtf 11-Jun-99
(About 373 words to follow.)
So, the tourist fishing industry in Northern Ontario is under threat because of the way that the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) defines restrictions as to the lengths of fishes that can be caught. The problem is that, if you have caught a fish and chopped it up on board, how do you prove to the MNR 'police' how long the fish is? The MNR apparently defines the length as that from the front of the nose to the end of the tail.
How we like to complicate life!
Here is my modest proposal, from one who could not tell a fish from a lobster. Define the length as being that from (a) the back of the gill or the first chopping point for filleting to (b) the narrowest point where the body becomes the tail, or the second chopping point for filleting. If this is still too simple, just say that this 'fillet' length is 80% of the longest length, or whatever percentage is appropriate for the species.
Dave Stephens' suggested solution, of a photo including a ruler, sounds good too, except for people who like to beat the system. I can see a whole new industry arising in the North. "Hey, would you like to buy a measuring tape that is marked off as if it were one metre long but is actually one-half metre long? Or one that is actually two metres long? They're both on sale today, at -- guess what -- half price!"This situation reminds me of the story of the law student who arrived at his car to find a parking ticket on it. He challenged in court, asking the parking officer what he was charged with. Reply: as stated on the parking meter, one has to "Deposit one nickel for each 12 minutes". The student argued that there is no such thing in Canada as a 'nickel' defined as being legal tender. Therefore, he had not been requested to pay money for parking. Therefore, how could he be charged for not paying for parking? The judge agreed. Case dismissed.
It seems that fishermen, instead of having to 'fish or cut bait', are now faced with the dilemma of having to "abate the cutting of fish"!
Language usage:
Sent: 17 May 99
To: Ontario Today, CBC Radio 1
Re: Language usage & red-pencil day broadcast of 14 May 99 on CBO radio 1Follow-up to language-usage program
C:\Up\LangNit.doc 17-May-99
I very much enjoyed and appreciated the subject program with host Dave Stephens and the two guests who had been attending the conference of the Editors Association of Canada.
The phone lines were too busy for me to get through with some of my pet peeves, so here goes.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Some pet peeves of language usage
*** Illogical usage of punctuation marks within quotation marks as American, alias, Canadian, usage ***
I had better start with written-language usage, especially because I will (of necessity, in my view) violate American usage in what follows, and especially as concerns the use of quotation marks and the use of the increasingly rare word "that". There, I have already violated American usage, by ending the preceding sentence with a period that is the last symbol in the sentence, instead of the second-last. I appear to be too logical for my own good! By American usage, I mean that prescribed by the Chicago and AP style manuals and that of the Globe and Mail. By "logical usage", at least in relation to the use of quotation marks, I mean that termed such by Fowler. Even more egregious is the inclusion of a comma preceding the closing quote mark within a sentence when that comma belongs to the sentence, not to the quoted passage. Totally illogical! These usages destroy the very purpose for which quotation marks were invented: namely, to quote a passage exactly.
*** American vs Canadian vs British usage ***
When the Globe adopted American usage officially in its published manual several years ago, there is no use even wondering whether there is any usage left to be called Canadian, although there are quaint words to consider. (Years ago in a restaurant in Philadelphia, I confused a waitress by asking for an extra serviette. After a to-and-fro, she asked, "Oh, you mean a napkin!". She also inquired as to where my Scottish accent came from!) I lean more heavily toward British usage, except for one glaring error, in my view, that is systemic in British English, at least, for example, in the Times of London. That problem became apparent to me while reading the Times on a flight back from London about ten years ago. In an article referring to the IBM Corporation, the article made repeated references to "they" as meaning "IBM". Very odd, I thought, that a corporation that is, by definition (at least under the law), a singular entity, should be referred to as if it were plural. There, I have just violated another usage, by employing the subjunctive. What is to become of me!
It is not as if I reject all American usage. I do agree with some differences in spelling, providing that, in using revised spelling, one does not reduce the utility of a useful distinction. For example, I have no problem describing a hue as a "color' rather than as a "colour", just as or forbears probably had no problem referring to an official as a "governor" rather than a "governeur". However, I refuse to refer to a signed piece of paper as a "check" rather as a "cheque", because the use of the spelling "check" to refer to at least two unrelated meanings is illogical and confusing. If this seems nitpicky, consider what is meant by the instruction "clear to land" issued by an air-traffic controller to an experienced US Navy jet pilot. Differences in interpretation as to what this phrase means led to the jet smashing into a mountain. Two dead. The official operations manual did not define what is meant by this phrase, presumably because it was thought to be too obvious! Hint; it did not mean "start landing" or "clear to start landing".
*** Plea that "that" be used ***
I am irritated about several usages that are gaining in popularity in spoken English, even on the CBC, which I used to (but no longer) hold in high regard in relation to language usage. One is the increasing scarcity of the useful word "that". Consider a spoken sentence that sounds as follows: Adam said the Batman was wrong. Such a simple sentence, but what does it mean? It could mean: "Adam said that the Batman was wrong". Or, it could mean: "The Batman said that Adam was wrong". I admit that in most cases there is not much doubt; however, there is often a slight moment of extra interpretation needed. Why not use language that is very clear rather than slightly murky, for want of a "that" here and there?
*** Plus" does not mean "and" ***
On the CBC, and everywhere in commercials, one encounters the word "plus", as in, for example, "This wonderful car has tires plus a motor". The word "plus" is being used increasingly as if it meant "and". It surely should not. Why? Because, in the CBC, it may be believed that 2 "plus" 2 makes 22, but for me, 2 "plus" 2 makes 4, and 2 "and" 2 makes 22. (Maybe that is why the CBC is having trouble wrestling with its budget numbers?)
*** Eve was a friend of Adam's raises question of "Adam's what?" ***
Another practice of the media that I find very irksome is exemplified in the following example. "Andrew is a friend of President Clinton's". This was probably intended to say that Andrew is a friend of Clinton; however, it does not say that. Instead, it raises a question. Andrew is a friend of Clinton' s what?" Clinton's father? A friend of Clinton's wife? Who knows?Why raise a puzzle when it would have been so easy to say, instead, "Andrew is a friend of President Clinton". Besides being clearer, it uses less space. No, this concept is just too simple and clear to be adopted for general use!
*** Would a "steen" of beer taste as sweet as a "stein" of beer? ***
The CBC and American media have all adopted a pronunciation usage that I find to be illogical, inconsistent, and demeaning. It may stem from the fact that I know some German (probably dangerously little!). There is a consistent rule of pronunciation is German such that the fragment "ein", as in Einstein, is pronounced as if it were "ine" in English, as in "pine". For example, Albert's last name would be pronounced as "ine-st-ine", not as "een-st-een". (A real purist might insist that the "st" be pronounced as in "scht", but that is a separate issue.) On the other hand, "ien" would be pronounced as the "een" in "teenager". So, in German, Leonard Bernstein's last name would be pronounced as "Burn-st-ine". Not so in North America. Here it has become "Burn-st-een", much to my annoyance! At the moment of writing, I have just heard Leonard Bernstein's name pronounced correctly, and for the first time on the CBC. However, it was on the French, not English, radio network! Illogically, "Einstein" still remains as "ine-st-ine" by the same spokesman! Would you prefer to have a "st-ine" of beer, or a "st-een" of one? I am sure that the former would taste better!
It was sad to hear that Shel Silverstein had died recently. It was even sadder to hear that it sounded on the CBC (English network) as if the person who died was Shel Silversteeeen!
*** What is the last name of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney? ***
It may seem odd that even the CBC and all other Canadian media do not know how to pronounce the name "Mulroney". They pronounce it as if it were" Mulrooony"! To their credit, however, some British and American media do know the correct pronunciation, "Mulrowny". Why would the CBC rhyme his name with "moony" and not "Kowney ", as in "Coney Island"? By "correct", I mean consistent. I find it somewhat offensive and illogical for the CBC to assume that there is a "u" in his last name.
To its credit, however, the CBC investigated this question several years on that treasure of a program, As it Happens. They phoned an Irish pub and popped the question. Overwhelming answer? "Mulroooney"! [Correction via later message: the overwhelming answer (as to the correct pronunciation of the name) to those in the Irish pub should be "Mulrowney", not "Mulrooooney".]Some argue that his name is pronounced by the CBC in the same way that Mr. Mulroney does. That is not a justifiable excuse. Just because he might pronounce his own last name wrongly is no excuse for others to do so.
*** What is the second name of Harry Truman? Or, when does an editor have to distort the truth, by federal law? ***
Another oddity of usage, and a glaringly defective one in my view, arises when one tries to answer the following seemingly simple question. What is the full second name of President Harry Truman? Again, in order to even start answering the question with any ease, I have to violate American usage in relation to the use of quotation marks; otherwise, it becomes very cumbersome to try to answer. Hint: the answer is either "S." or "S", not, for example, Steven. One would have thought that the correct answer might be "S.", as this is what you will see in most encyclopedias and in the title of a biography written by his daughter. Surely she should know, should she not? Another hint: rephrase the question to the following. What is the second name as it appears on all official publications of the government of the USA? Answer: "S.".
Here is where I really have to violate American usage and insist on two periods, not one; otherwise it becomes awkward to communicate even this simple idea. I would have had to say that the name consists of the single letter S followed by a period mark. A bit prolix! Surely this should give the right answer, should it not? It gives the same answer as does the biography and encyclopedias cited above. Those answers are wrong! His second (full) name is the single letter "S". But to find this out took much work. I even looked at a picture of his tombstone on the Internet, but could not discern whether or not the S had a period after it. I think that it is comically ironic that a president of the USA is buried with a possible error in the spelling of his name on his tombstone. And all at the insistence of special editing rules of the US government that are unknown to most people! The full explanation is much longer, but I could attach it to a future message if you wish. A further irony is that, to my knowledge of his style, Harry S Truman would not have cared a whit!
*** If "Mr." is an abbreviation of the word "Mister", of what is "Mrs." an
abbreviation? Answer: nothing, it is not an abbreviation! ***
This tendency to try to incorporate punctuation marks into words may sound weird, but it is practiced in the most respectable of circles. Witness the successful attempts by the Globe and Mail and others to use the following as words: "Mrs." and "Ms.". These cannot be abbreviations, so they must be words. And yet, there are no words in standard dictionaries for which these are abbreviations! One is forced to conclude that these are titles, and therefore, words. They are, therefore, words that include punctuation marks! Very strange. In my view, "Mr." and "Mrs" would be more acceptable.
Let us pursue this "logic". A couple in Quebec is fighting a court battle to overcome the objection by birth-registration officials to the name "C'est une ange" as the second name of their newborn darling daughter! I assume that the official objects to the inclusion of punctuation marks in a name. If the Globe can do it (wrongly), why can't they?
*** "Approximately" does not mean "roughly" ***
It seems that the word "approximately" is being used more frequently of late to mean "roughly" or "about" than it is to mean, as defined in dictionaries, "precisely" or "exactly".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In closing, might I make a plea that, if Onttoday can have a gardening show weekly, why could it not have a language show weekly also, or at least once every two weeks? It does not have to be a pedantic program. I could follow up with some more pet peeves; however, I have already said too much. I did not have time to write this shorter!
To: Ontario Today, CBC Radio 1
Re: Language usage & red-pencil day broadcast of 14 May 99 on CBO Radio 1
From: Wayne PaulsonC:\Up\LangNit.doc 17-May-99
This is a correction to a message of the above title that I sent on 17 May 99 at 2:59 am.
In the second paragraph of the section
*** What is the last name of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney? ***,
the overwhelming answer (as to the correct pronunciation of the name) of
those in the Irish pub should be "Mulrowney", not "Mulrooooney".
Sorry for the trouble!
Risk:
Title as published: ?
Editorial changes made: ?
Sent: 8 June 98. Published: ?.
To: Letters Editor, Ottawa Citizen
Re: Letter by Emile Therien of 8 June 98, page A10.
Proposed title: "Driving Diana"
C:\Up\Diana.doc 8-Jun-98 (About 310 words to follow.)
~~~~~~~~~
This is apropos of the letter by Emile Therien of 8 June 98, page A10.
Yes, it seems correct, at least politically, to blame alcohol and speed as contributing to the death of the Princess of Wales.
The government of France is concerned to determine the cause of the accident that killed Princess Diana, as if this would answer the question of whether some person's negligence caused her death. Putting the question more specifically, it seems to be restricting the question to what or who caused the accident. I presume that any fledging defence lawyer would hasten to add that this question is not the same as asking what caused the death of Diana and, by inference, who might be responsible for it, at least in part. A more sensitive question for France to ask is: why was Diana killed, and not just slightly injured at most, 'just' because her car went out of control? It seems to me that the answer to this question is so obvious that it should be of great embarrassment to France. Perhaps it is why France is not pursuing the answer to that question.
The answer is that it appears that there were no guardrails to deflect her car from a head-on collision with a solid pillar constructed of concrete and steel at the very edge of the road. Race cars hit guardrails at speeds of up to 300 kph and it is routine, not exceptional, that drivers emerge without injury. Of course, such drivers are skilled enough to routinely wear seat and shoulder belts! Another question to ask?
Do I sense a conspiracy at work? No, just routine negligence. I don't have to be paranoid to worry that some of the roads of France seem to lack elementary safety precautions and that some car occupants are not savvy enough to wear seat and shoulder belts.
~~~~~~~~~
Sent: 3 Jan 99. Not published ?
To: Letters Editor, The Globe and Mail
C:\Up\Avalanche.doc (About 277 words to follow.)
Is land so scarce in the North that a school had to be built in the pathway of an avalanche that was known to have occurred about three years ago? Given that the construction was to proceed, why, as it appears, was a major wall of the building facing the hill broadside? Surely it should have been of the utmost simplicity to have chosen, instead, to have a corner of the building facing the hill, preferably reinforced, so that in the event of an avalanche, it could cut the oncoming flow of snow as does the bow of a ship knifing through water. The Swiss have been doing this for years, using sharp, reinforced corner structures.
Why were people firing off guns in an avalanche zone -- a well-known way of triggering avalanches, as well as injury and hearing damage?
Are planners and building inspectors expected to raise the slightest question when someone applies to construct a building in an avalanche zone or under a volcano? Apparently not.
I do not apologize for being an armchair quarterback. The measures and thought required to both anticipate and to avoid this tragedy were so simple and obvious that I suppose no one thought of them.
It would be misleading to call this an accident; instead, it is the obvious consequence of stupidity.
By the way, if the building was insured, was it insured against both accidents (which this was not) and stupid negligence? It will be interesting to hear the remarks of the insurance company's lawyers.
Do we now need a Royal Commission to investigate just why it is that snow can sometimes slide downhill? Probably
Sent: 15 Feb 99. Not published ?
To: Letters Editor, The Globe and Mail
C:\Up\PhonRisk 15-Feb-99
Another cell-phone risk? (or: How private are cell phones?)
(About 158 words to follow, including 34 in footnotes.)
There has been a revival of concern recently that electromagnetic radiation from cell phones might cause cancer and genetic defects.
In a report on Radio Sweden (*) it was claimed that a remote eavesdropper could listen to anyone speaking near a cellular phone, even if it is not enabled for use. The only requirement is for the outsider to know the phone number. A spokesman for the Swedish Secret Service stated that this is possible for GSM phones and that no tampering with any equipment is required. A spokesman for one manufacturer, Ericsson, denied that this is possible.
Is this possible? Does it worry anyone? Should people attending sensitive board meetings unholster (**) their "weapons" and leave them at the salon door? Just asking!
* At about 3:15 am 14 Feb 99 via World Radio Network and CBC Radio 1.
** My spell checker suggests "upholster" in lieu of "unholster"; I'm not sure which is the better
choice!
Sports subsidies:
Title as published: ?
Editorial changes made: ?
Sent: 6 Mar 99. Published: ?.
To: Letters Editor, Ottawa Citizen
Proposed title: Hockey Night in Kanata
C:\Up\Bryden 6-Mar-99
(About 292 words to follow.)
I lose patience with the lamentations of Rod Bryden as to why his Senators should pay lower taxes.
He promised to pay for a highway interchange -- solely to service a stadium in the middle of nowhere. Does he now want to breach that contract?
He complains about the Canada-USA dollar exchange rate. If he chose to pay his players millions of US dollars instead of Russian rubles, why should that be a problem? Currency-futures hedging solved that problem (about a century ago?).
He complains that US cities subsidize stadiums and asks for a level playing field. Why not complain under NAFTA of unfair subsidies by US cities and seek redress from the USA? It is illegal for cities in Canada to subsidize private companies, as Regional Chair Bob Chiarelli and Councilor Alex Cullen bravely pointed out. Just because US cities make such subsidies (pushing some of them to near bankruptcy) does not mean that we should emulate their bad example.
He asks that the extent of his team's taxation be examined. I agree. Perhaps the team should be paying even more taxes than now. Why should taxes support business-expense write-offs for box seats and tickets? Such credits should be abolished.
He states that if relief is not forthcoming he may move his Senators to the USA. I wish them bon voyage. I do not begrudge him the millions of dollars of potential profit, partly at the expense of the "lucky" US city that is naïve enough to welcome them. Just relish that city's economic gain of ten part-time jobs selling hot dogs at minimum wage, for a tax subsidy of, say, US$100 million!
A modest proposal: Why not increase the $95 ticket prices to $200 and cut some salaries by $300,000?
Go home. Go to Table of contents for all letters.
You can e-mail me at waynerp@sympatico.ca