I remember seeing a notice in the office once that said “Please do not turn off this PC without prior consultation with myself”, and that actually led me to reach for my pencil and replace the last four words with “…asking me first”, on the grounds that they were shorter, less high-faluting, and didn’t abuse the reflexive pronoun.
I’ve done a double-take on seeing this sign at the entrance to certain public spaces – recreation grounds, or whatever – “No dogs allowed (except guide dogs)”. We know that seeing-eye dogs are very clever; but, good heavens, can they read as well? (After a moment’s thought, you get the point of the sign; but it can mentally throw you off a bit.)
Unfortunately, you’re the one who is making mistakes here.
“Visiting inappropriate content is prohibited” - Inappropriate and prohibited are not synonymous.
“Authorized vehicles only”; “No Unauthorized Access”; and “No Trespassing” all have clear meanings. They’re telling people that these areas are not open to general traffic but they are open to people who have permission to be there. This is obviously a different message from saying an area is open to everyone. But it’s also a different message than saying nobody is allowed to enter the area.
I’m sorta with the OP on this one - the words aren’t synonymous, but the fact that something is labelled ‘inappropriate’ does very strongly imply that it will be prohibited.
But… I’m not sure how it would be possible to word a sign without either being explicit and precise about what is inappropriate, or without including some redundancy, the options seem to be:
*“Visiting inappropriate content is prohibited” *- yeah, a bit redundant.
“Viewing porn, violence, goat squidding, (etc) is prohibited” - could be wordy, bound to omit something, and some people will find the mere mention of ‘porn’ offensive in itself.
In the first case, I would have sat down, had a lengthy, serious discussion of the pros and cons of turning off the computer with myself, then turned it off. In the second, I would have asked myself, “May I turn this computer off?” I would have then told myself, “Yup!” and turned it off.
I have mentioned this sign many times here on the board, but it still makes me laugh.
Behind the theater where I worked, there were some parking spots just for the neighboring dry cleaners. He didn’t like it when sometimes the actors and staff would park in his spaces back there.
English was not his first language, but we got the drift when he posted the sign:
“Do not view inappropriate content.” Is that better?
“No Trespassing” - Without the sign, trespassing charges probably cannot be as successfully prosecuted. I got no problem with this one. This applies to all the other ones as well.
I still am partial to “Do Not Pass” being interpreted as “Don’t go past this point right here!!” As a kid I thought it meant that and my parents had to clarify for me.
Should we also nitpick “Don’t drink and drive” Shouldn’t it be “Don’t drive drunk”? Or do they mean drinking anything at all???
I am equal opportunity here. At a rest stop in New York State, two beautifully worded signs:
[QUOTE=NYDOT]
The picnic area is closed from sunset to sunrise; violators will be prosecuted.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=NYDOT]
The disposal of household garbage is prohibited.
[/QUOTE]
Both sign say something meaningful which is not intuitively obvious.
Not in particular, because it is semantically moot. Only a sociopath would purposefully view content he believed was “inappropriate”- that it must be stated on a sign proves the world is full of deviants, and thus doomed!
My objection to these signs is actually the overreaching “legalese”, and at least in part to the concept of trespassing in general. For instance, adding superfluous words such as “Posted…” or “Notice”, is legal bullshit. “Posting” the sign, addressed to no one in particular, adds no obligation for people to “notice”.
The ever popular “Private Property: No Hunting or Trespassing”, I begrudgingly accept, because it states the party injured (the private landlord), and specific objections, (such as shooting tasty animals without his permission). Trespassing is first and foremost a civil offense, and knowing the party that will be legally injured is vital in deciding whether to obey the sign. The sign itself only provides information, not any new legal obligation.
“Trespassing” without causing actual damages (entering without permission being a potential statutory damage), I find distasteful for a variety of reasons. The fact that such tangled English is used in various “No Trespassing” signs only highlights this point for me.
I often view content that I acknowledge could be considered “inappropriate.” Being told not to do so at a public computer makes sense to me. (although, personally, I wouldn’t do such a thing).
As a kid I thought it meant that and my parents had to clarify for me.
