profiler--thank you. it's an interesting question--what would it take to prove i'm the stinky cheese man?

stinky cheese man wrote:

---

jameela--with all due respect, i have been careful not to attribute motives to the post that initiated this thread. but i will also note, you don't mention the original post on this thread and the context that was omitted (sp?). in the context of the message, and in the context of additional messages sent from the pr office, i think it is an unnecessary overreaction.

---

And with all due respect back, SCM (whoever you really are), your own words to Amy--"you chose . . . you took it out of context, now realize it, and are trying to save face. now you're trying to extrapolate it"--certainly do sound like mind-reading and motive-assigning to me. As for me, I thought my initial response was calm and reasonable at the time. If I had thought I needed to second-guess what someone else on the board might not know-- But perhaps that's the problem: because of a flawed administration, we are very, very tired from months of hypervigilance and doing extra work to clean up bad decisions from higher up. If you do want to read minds, I think we're stretched thin enough to rate your more charitable construction.

And to everyone, if the mistaken form of a PR letter echoing through our messed-up e-mail system is all that we have to worry about today, perhaps things are finally getting better.

JL

Invictus wrote:

---

Run, run, as fast as you can, maybe?

---

Some of us get that...

stinky cheese man wrote:

---

i know many colleagues who simply "blew the memo off." 'nuff said.

---

If USM faculty are even remotely like most other faculty, the majority blew it off

(A lot of folks at my institution have their email filters set to send anything from the PR department straight to the "bit bucket.")

Madison Ave. wrote:

---

 
According to my favorite online dictionary, dictionary.com, "email" is just fine, as is "all the time." When referring to a specific university, calling it the "University" is also acceptable. Also, as I intended, it is "person(s)" -- perhaps there is one person who may best answer the media's question about a nursing issue, but there may be a need for two people to give different perspectives on a Presidential (that's U.S.) issue, possibly an historian and a political scientist. Maybe you should get a job teaching people how to exhibit bad manners by correcting other people's grammar...incorrectly.

---

 
Wow. You have a handy-dandy dictionary! Glad to see you are expanding your horizons.
 
But professionals in the PR business typically use AP style when they write, no matter who it may be for (newspaper, mailout, whatever). It becomes habit (well, for professionals who do professional work) to use the same style of writing so that they are consistent and not just using, oh, let's say "acceptable" anything. "Acceptable" is so .... common. And your explanation for "persons?" Talk about spin!
 
Using a capital U for university is "acceptable," but remember: I was talking about professional writers. True, it's no big deal, but ... bad writing is bad writing.
 
And, sweetie, I make more money than you could ever dream of, so don't you worry about me. I'm doing fine, and I can sleep at night.
 
Can you?
 

Some "barriers" are but necessary guidelines to help maintain consistency for both writers and readers. I doubt those who use consistency in other fields would think their ways "arrogant."

Madison Ave. wrote:

---

Your tone belies your arrogance.

I sleep just fine. I don't have to rely on the AP style to validate my intelligence.

---

But possibly a dictionary would help. Start with looking up "belies."