On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 23:22:12 -0000, "Philip Eden"
philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote:

The content of a weather warning is of little use if it
is not communicated accurately. When lives - as we
have been told - are at risk there is no excuse for
badly expressed warnings containing imprecise detail,
fudged geography and sloppy English.

When such warnings are broadcast by people who
are supposed to be professional communicators,
there should be no place for emotional presentation,
gratuitous personal advice, or personal opinion, all
of which have been heard on radio and television
today.

Those who deride the need for accurate communication
are sometimes scientists who would not tolerate for
one moment the smallest error in a formula or an
equation. When those scientists represent, disclaimer
or no, a national institution, then their attitude to accuracy
reflects on that institution.

Philip, as an outsider observing this discussion I agree with your
general points but not with your earlier specific criticism of the the
"sloppy English" used in tonight's warning - unless you meant it to be
taken tongue-in-cheek. The meaning was clear and the British public
will neither understand nor care about about the point you raised. The
grammar is most certainly arguable both ways, with a slight advantage
to your side of the argument. If you intended to illustrate the wider
points mentioned above, you did not, perhaps, choose the best example.

Having said all that, I did think your initial remark was made
tongue-in-cheek and it made me smile. The sharp response from Will and
some others surprised me, and obviously, it did not make them smile.
Now, after reading it all again, I can see both points of view.

I think it's time to put it all down to a misunderstanding - and move
on.

--
Dave