I will say that one of my pet peeves is when people misspell the word “lead” as the past tense form of the verb “lead”. (It should be “led”, not to be confused with the abbreviation “LED”. Fucking English language.)
Since we’re in a nitpicking era of this thread, surely that is an acronym?
Ah, well then.
Thanks!
I see your nit and raise.
LED is an initialism, not an acronym. Yes, many people misuse the terms unto interchangeability. They are wrong.
Pedants of the world, untie! Or something like that 
Got your back, Jack.
Yes, it’s only an acronym if it forms a word, like scuba or radar or laser. AFAIK,nobody pronounces LED as anything but the letters.
And besides, initialisms and acronyms are both kinds of abbreviations, so @Atamasama was right in the first place.
Just remember that “read” rhymes with “lead”, but “read” doesn’t rhyme with “lead”.
Not so sure of that, at least in the journalism profession. The spelling “lede” has been around a long time, and for a reason.
Long before the modern electronic age, newspaper type was set in lead (the metal) slugs with a Linotype machine. So “lead” was a fundamental element of journalism vocabulary, meaning the metal.
So the “lede” spelling naturally evolved to distinguish from the metal as well as giving the proper pronunciation for the opening line(s) of a news item – another fundamental word of journalism vocabulary.
(I took Journalism in High School, circa 1969. “Lede” was certainly already well-established then.)
Read the essay link I provided in the post you quoted.
While it’s not that it was unheard of, it is only recently of common use. And its earliest usage among journalists is documented in the 1970s, so I question your recollection.
Alright, if the linguistic prescriptivists have had their fill, here’s the story of a New Hampshire woman who had to call 911 from inside an urgent care clinic after the staff forgot about her, closed for the night, and locked her in.
I want to be clear that this isn’t a ‘stupid MFer in the news’, I just didn’t want to start a thread for it and didn’t know where else to put it.
A priest was livestreaming a mass and was killed when the crucifix fell on him. The notable part being that, at least as of right now, the video is still up. It’s not ‘graphic’ in the sense that you don’t see anything gory, but you do basically see him getting killed (though he actually died later).
Dayum. That’s a shame. Poor dude.
Makes me think of the cliché about dying while doing what you love. Although sadly he wasn’t killed instantly. If he had to die, that probably would’ve been his preference.
Also makes me think of any number of bad jokes where the punchline is god intoning “Damn. Missed again!”
What part of that is stupidity, though?
None of it.*
*In fairness, there’s no word yet on the cause, maybe someone did something stupid that caused it to fall.
Semi-related: Twitter is getting awfully snuffy lately. They allowed clips showing the full accident of that priest getting his head smashed in. Before that they hosted the video of that airborne guy who’s equipment failed or something, falling fifty feet or so to his death. And of course that where I saw (after unwittingly clicking a video, like these other two) of Charlie Kirk being murdered.
Even more semi-related, there’s a documentary called Evil Genius where, amongst a whole lot of other evil things, a group of people put a bomb around someone’s neck and made him rob a bank. They show the news footage of the bomb exploding and killing him.
IIRC, at the time, the police didn’t know that he wasn’t the bad guy in this situation, hence being at gunpoint.
Here’s the clip, and again, you do actually see the bomb detonate.
If we’re criticizing their publishing it, should we be linking to it?
As long as no grammatical or linguistic errors have been committed, it’s A-OK.
So, better a catastrophe than an apostrophe…?
Hey, poster’s doing that would hurt guy’s like me “personally!”