Some reader comments on recent Daily Briefs:
First up, on the important story about the judge's ruling against Newhall Land's EIR document for Newhall Ranch:
Yet every time Newhall Land triumphs in a court case over their bitter SCOPE rivals, we can't seem to escape local coverage.
Even after the bankruptcy, the plundering by shady developer Lennar, and the new changes in ownership, Newhall Land is still our pater familias and this is still a company town apparently.
And Marlee is still there, fighting the good fight for Newhall Land. I find some comfort in that.
Another reader quoting from the Signal's editorial that recommended a no vote on the Genetically Modified Foods proposition:
Another reader writing in reaction to local McKeon surrogate Bill Reynold's attack video that featured an unlicensed cameo of me and a photoshopped John Boston with Mike D's head:
I take charges of Grammar violations seriously and beat myself up for weeks when I'm convicted of them. It's the inner Catholic school child in me, cowering in fear of nuns. So I decided to look this one up.
Turns out I'm not British, just pompous according to this Grammar blog:
Take that you yokels!
Incidentally, I don't like the way I wrote that lede sentece in the Brief today. It was an "historic preservation ordinance" but saying it like that is misleading. A reader might think the preservation ordinance was historic, as in big, noteworthy, in nature rather than a preservation ordinance about historic properties.
I shall chastise myself for a few days for this one. Thanks for the guilt trip reader.
-----------------
Daily Brief feedback, ctd.
First up, on the important story about the judge's ruling against Newhall Land's EIR document for Newhall Ranch:
Jeff, this was front page news on yesterday’s Los Angeles Daily Journal (a legal newspaper). According to the article, the ruling occurred last Thursday. I believe that somehow I missed all the local coverage.Yeah I watch this as closely as anyone and there really was no local coverage. The first this reader read of it was in an obscure legal journal and the first time I read of it was in the Ventura County Star.
Yet every time Newhall Land triumphs in a court case over their bitter SCOPE rivals, we can't seem to escape local coverage.
Even after the bankruptcy, the plundering by shady developer Lennar, and the new changes in ownership, Newhall Land is still our pater familias and this is still a company town apparently.
And Marlee is still there, fighting the good fight for Newhall Land. I find some comfort in that.
Another reader quoting from the Signal's editorial that recommended a no vote on the Genetically Modified Foods proposition:
"There is little research to document that genetically modified foods are harmful to humans..." Sure, little research exists about long-term effects. You know, effects that could wind up being a Biden ("big f#@8!g deal") for a lot of people. But we should probably wait until we see how bad the negative long-term effects are before we do anything, right? You know, I'm sure in 1951 there was little research to document that putting soldiers in the line of an atomic bomb detonation was harmful to humansOr cigarette smoking.
Thanks for your daily bulletin this morning Jeff. That You Tube video reminded me to make another donation to Lee Rogers campaign.
Go get 'em reader! You can donate to the Rogers campaign here.
Does anyone remember Photoshop images being used this much in local campaign history? We've seen Buck McKeon's face transplanted to a craps table and onto the body of a rootin' tootin' cowboy and now Bill Reynolds has violated an SCV literary icon (really, our only one), John Boston. Is photoshop getting cheaper or are our mailers just getting better?
Our last reader comment questions my nationality and grammar skillz in reference to today's brief in which I said, "An historic preservation ordinance":
Are you British, Mr. J-to-the-Wilson?
I get "an honest man" vs. "a honest man" and "an hour or two" vs. "a hour or two"...but I think most Americans still put a hard "h" on "historic" and a good ol' American "a" in front of it as in "An hour into the meeting, a historic preservation ordinance remained elusive."
I take charges of Grammar violations seriously and beat myself up for weeks when I'm convicted of them. It's the inner Catholic school child in me, cowering in fear of nuns. So I decided to look this one up.
Turns out I'm not British, just pompous according to this Grammar blog:
The "formal" rule is:
- when an h-word is stressed on the first syllable ("hat", "heritage"), "a" has to be used over "an"
- when an h-word is not stressed on the first syllable ("historic", "heroic", "horrendous"), then either "a" or "an" can both be used
This is why "an historic..." is acceptable but "an hat" is not.
But you're right, it does sound rather pompous to use "an" before an h-word.
Take that you yokels!
Incidentally, I don't like the way I wrote that lede sentece in the Brief today. It was an "historic preservation ordinance" but saying it like that is misleading. A reader might think the preservation ordinance was historic, as in big, noteworthy, in nature rather than a preservation ordinance about historic properties.
I shall chastise myself for a few days for this one. Thanks for the guilt trip reader.
-----------------