On the front page of the
Sydney Morning Herald today, there's a nagging article, pointing out that most of us don't regard reading our way through all the different deals available on mobile telephones and credit cards and so forth as a reasonable way to spend our time, which means that we are all being charged more than we might be and are, therefore, very silly. Meanwhile the staff at the paper can't even be bothered to do their job and read the article carefully enough to make sure they've included all the words:
("who" is missing between "those" and "took", if you want me to do your job for you.)
And, though I don't usually have a filthy mind (honest), it does strike me that the "LATER" emblazoned object in this picture could have been positioned so that it did not appear to be rising from the green creature's groin (and I do acknowledge that it may not be an editing question we're dealing with here so much as a problem with my unpleasant mind):
I suppose the one thing I would say is that it is always important to remember that, if you can be misread, you will be misread.
No comments:
Post a Comment