An apostrophe is needed at the end of Alouettes, but that's nothing compared to what comes next in "Time to fix things, and fast" in 24H Vancouver on August 30, 2010:
Pourous? The writer no doubt meant porous (which is the first suggestion when entering nonword pourous on dictionary.com), but even so, how can an offence be porous? I've heard of defences being porous (penetrable, sievelike), but I struggle to see how an offence can be characterized as such. Also, see how the writer wrote "Their defence has allowed"? Defence is singular there, but then the "pourous offence are in for a yet another big challenge" - why is defence singular and offence plural? They shouldn't be. Are should be is.I searched online for the Lions' record (1-7 after seven straight losses!) and the first news item that turned up was the article that contains the above errors, albeit in a different location. I first spotted the errors in the print edition of today's 24H Vancouver, while my online search produced the article with a different headline and found on the Toronto Sun website. And yes, the errors are still there.
No comments:
Post a Comment