Very few things could make an article (?) titled "Child Stars: Then and Now" and featuring What's-Her-Name (oh, right, Lindsay Lohan) look interesting, but congratulations, NBC Connecticut! By putting it alongside "Michelle Obama Style Guide: Nobel Wardrobe", you just may have found a way!
Yes, NBC Connecticut, where "Locals are intrigued by icy roads".
That's right, they said "intrigued". By icy roads.
Hey, don't ask me. I live in southern Alabama, where we know that icy roads only exist in fairy tales. Maybe some kindly Northerner will explain what's so "intriguing" about icy roads. "Stressed", I could see-- or "concerned". "Locals are intrigued" makes the icy roads sound like a tall, dark, and handsome stranger from an old film. What's next? "Locals are dazzled by wild fires"?
Those were all very well and good, but my favoritest tidbit of them all (today) is this one we found over the weekend on good ol' Wikipedia, where the facts are only as reliable as the latest random person to log in and type them up.
Wikipedia wants us to dig into out pockets and pay to keep the site running, so they've put up ad banners soliciting donations. This one (in case the photo above ceases to display) reads as follows:
"As a professional scientist, Wikipedia is my go-to source for ideas and concepts new to me. Donate for this? You bet!"
Ok, ok, I admit it! I look at Wikipedia fairly often, myself. (It's hard not to, considering how highly it's rated in Google, which is another story altogether...) However, I've learned not to take everything I read there as The One and Only Truth. You know how they say you should check out any information you read on the Internet-- not just assume it's all accurate? Well, that goes double for some of the stuff I've seen on Wikipedia. But now I'm rambling. . .
What I find funny is that this person felt it necessary to identify himself as a "professional scientist"-- presumably to impress upon us that if he-- a professional scientist-- considers Wikipedia as his "go-to source", then surely the rest of us ought to see its incredible value and donate to keep it going. It smacks of a sad lack of modesty (and leads me to wring my hands over the implied research abilities of modern Professional Scientists). But then again, maybe I'm just reading too much into it. . .
ETA: Last night, Donald pointed out that the Wikipedia testimonial isn't even grammatically correct. (Good job! (g)) As the ad (or whatever it is) is written, Wikipedia itself is the Professional Scientist! (I guess grammar isn't important in a Professional Scientist's line of work.)
