I don't mind an informal style of writing on websites, but I am continually amazed that big businesses leave fundamentally illiterate people to do it.
Whoever wrote this for the TalkTalk website can't have passed a verbal reasoning test or know what "limit" means.
"Kids Safe was built to help protect children's safety online. If children use your internet connection, Kids Safe will limit access to websites defined as unsuitable for the family, including pornography and violence."
To me, that says that Kids Safe will only allow access to unsuitable websites, and only then "if children use your internet connection". Presumably if children do not use it, it will allow access to suitable ones as well.
If they would send me this stuff to review I could correct it for them for a very reasonable fee.
Sorry, I flipped into Meldrew mode while looking to see if I can get a better deal, having been prompted to renew my advance annual line rental payment.
|
I'm not sure I agree with your limited view of what "limit" means.
I think a limit can be either inclusive or exclusive.
The royal enclosue at Ascot presumably has limited access. I don't think that means that everyone can enter, but only a small number are allowed to leave. :)
|
Cliff's right, but even his meaning isn't what we'd want here. Once we've determined that a site is unsuitable for children to see, we don't want to limit their access to it - i.e. allow some but not all; we want to prevent it.
While we're in the mood, 'protect ... safety' is a a tautology, like 'hotter temperatures'. One word is already implicit in the other.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Wed 4 Feb 15 at 15:41
|
...'protect ... safety' is a a tautology...
Oops! Thought I'd better point that out before someone else did.
}8---)
|
>> To me, that says that Kids Safe will only allow access to unsuitable websites, and
>> only then "if children use your internet connection". Presumably if children do not use it,
>> it will allow access to suitable ones as well.
I think you are wrong and it doesn't read that way to me at all.
>> If they would send me this stuff to review I could correct it for them
>> for a very reasonable fee.
Therefore even if you offered your service for an even more reasonable no charge I would decline. Don't change your day job.
|
>> To me, that says that Kids Safe will only allow access to unsuitable websites, and
>> only then "if children use your internet connection". Presumably if children do not use it,
>> it will allow access to suitable ones as well.
>>
Doesn't read that way to me, seems clear to me and I bet most people reading it. I think you're over thinking it ;-)
|
|
Seems as if quite a few here would fail the verbal reasoning test too.
|
>> Seems as if quite a few here would fail the verbal reasoning test too.
Only in the land of Manatee. Meanwhile in the real world........
|
You may be right Manatee to the extent that the word may have changed its meaning over the years, and that perhaps originally it did only have your meaning. I don't know - it's possible.
But whatever the true origins, it surely has correctly been used for a long time just to mean impose some kind of restriction on crossing a boundary, whether seen from outside looking in or inside looking out?
Words do sometimes adopt a new meaning that is almost the exact opposite of their original.
"Handicap" is a good example. Originally, and in some circumstances still, it meant a restriction placed on the most able, fastest, etc in order to make for a fairer competition with those not so blessed with those qualities.
Now it can apply to a lack of such qualities rather than an excess.
|
Meeeeh... there is a slight ambiguity in the KidSafe quote, but most people won't be confused by it or even notice it. The name KidSafe nudges the reader in the right direction.
As for illiteracy and infuriating bureaucratic prose full of cant words and bullying assumptions, they are so widespread that all one can do is curse quietly and make faces. There's no point in trying to reform purveyors of such stuff. Criticism makes them resentful and they start actually trying to be annoying.
It's terrible being too good for the real world. Makes one feel lonely and earns one a lot of disapproval.
|
>> As for illiteracy and infuriating bureaucratic prose full of cant words and bullying assumptions, they
>> are so widespread that all one can do is curse quietly and make faces. There's
>> no point in trying to reform purveyors of such stuff.
As usual you put it much better than I.
It's in the same category as trying to educate other drivers by blowing your horn at them. None ever thanked me and I gave that up a long time ago.
|
Yes, the use of limit is arguable I suppose.
All they had to say was "block" or "prevent" if that was what they meant.
The conditional clause "If children use your internet connection..." is just wrong.
The whole thing is sloppy. In that paragraph I concede it's obvious what they mean, but unless they can or bother to read what they have written, that isn't always the case.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 4 Feb 15 at 16:35
|
Agree it's sloppy. Wouldn't have got past any of my three seniors at last job.
Prevent would be better than limit and it should be clear (a) that it's an optional service and (b) if default is on or off.
I wouldn't want it even if my kids were still young. Too prone to false +ves.
|
>> Agree it's sloppy. Wouldn't have got past any of my three seniors at last job.
>>
>> Too prone to false >> +ves.>>
And the above isn't sloppy? :)
Or, for most of us, a mystery as is so often with your abbreviations Bromp.
Pat
|
+ves = positives.
I must try harder .
|
>> >> Too prone to false >> +ves.>>
>>
>> And the above isn't sloppy? :)
>>
>> Or, for most of us, a mystery as is so often with your abbreviations Bromp.
>>
>>
>> Pat
At least he's not writing a website. "False positives" BTW :)
|
>>... while looking to see if I can get a better deal, having been prompted to renew my advance annual line rental payment.>>
Just for your interest, when I wanted to switch to fibre about three months ago, I checked up with TalkTalk as to what they could offer me to stay after being with them for eight years.
After two attempts, I spoke to a lady at its Preston call centre and ended up with a deal for a full 18 months giving me half-price fibre broadband (£5), half price Essentials (£4.50), a TV box and free evening and weekend phone calls (I'd had an free AnyTime UK and International calls package). Also got full credits to cover cost of fibre installation...:-)
AnyTime UK calls require a £7.50 boost, but I very rarely use the phone during the day other than to ring my best mate (also on TT, so calls free), so didn't bother. Same for the TV box as I already have all the bells and whistles in this area with NowTV, CatchUp etc.
At the moment, including line rental of £16.70 a month, I'm paying just over £20 a month and reduce this by 10 per cent for prompt payment ahead of the normal Direct Debit date (this is cancelled). Once the credits are up, this figure will rise a little, but still less than previous legacy AnyTime International3 package.
Last edited by: Stuartli on Wed 4 Feb 15 at 17:18
|
|
Thanks for that Stuartli.
|
It is, it turns out, a great failing of mine that I am almost unable to grasp the intention behind almost any given sentence without at least three readings. This has been my downfall many a time in exams. I have a problem with taking everything literally - if there is any ambiguity whatsoever my mind always seems to pick up the "wrong" meaning.
My reading of manatee's original is the same as his. In fact I'd have not read it the way every one else is at all unless it was pointed out, so that website would have been just completely wrong to me.
I'm with Manatee, therefore, who also has a nifty bread recipe, incidentally, which combined with some of Zero's thoughts scored a great success the other weekend.
|
>> It is, it turns out, a great failing of mine that I am almost unable
>> to grasp the intention behind almost any given sentence without at least three readings.
That's a part of what I'm whinging about. I trip over these things, and have to read it again, which is a timewaster even though it's usually possible to work out what is intended.
Zeddo probably sees being literal-minded as a defect; it's certainly a handicap at times (nod to Cliff).
It's the job of the writer to make reading easy, especially a professional writer.
I haven't cracked the French bread yet - I want the crunchy crust kind that you have to buy twice a day. I have only had one go, and used a standard white bread recipe with some fat in, as suggested on the Wessex Mill bag. It made a nice sandwich baguette as expected, but it wasn't French bread.
I have also had a play with soda bread that I could use as a quick fix when I run out and haven't time to make it properly. Didn't like the smell though, too used to the warm yeasty odours.
|
>> Zeddo probably sees being literal-minded as a defect; it's certainly a handicap at times (nod
>> to Cliff).
>>
>> It's the job of the writer to make reading easy, especially a professional writer.
So what do the literarily minded do? Make it harder - deliberately just for the sake of it. It was pretty clear right from the outset, one word in in fact, what the gist of the words were about, it takes a fair degree of intransigence and b***** mindedness to then work at deliberately misconstruing what was being explained.
>> I haven't cracked the French bread yet - I want the crunchy crust kind that
>> you have to buy twice a day. I have only had one go, and used
>> a standard white bread recipe with some fat in, as suggested on the Wessex Mill
>> bag. It made a nice sandwich baguette as expected, but it wasn't French bread.
Told you not to use the recipe on the bag! no fat! And if you are doing baguettes they can stand a higher temperature (220c) and shorter cooking time,
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 4 Feb 15 at 19:48
|
>> it takes a fair degree of
>> intransigence and b***** mindedness to then work at deliberately misconstruing what was being explained.
No effort at all!
>> Told you not to use the recipe on the bag! no fat! And if you
>> are doing baguettes they can stand a higher temperature (220c) and shorter cooking time,
Yeah, just wanted a baseline really. I think you suggested 'usual white bread recipe' which includes oil for me. I intend to make the next lot with just yeast, flour, water and salt, probably tomorrow. We seem to have been away a lot since the bread thread.
|
>> So what do the literarily minded do?
Read Proust in the morning and Castaneda at bedtime?
|
Incompetent copywriters - Cliff Pope
