<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Fudge Wine &#187; Pet Peeves</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fudgewine.com/category/pet-peeves/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fudgewine.com</link>
	<description>Mental Pleasures</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 May 2010 15:18:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>People, it&#8217;s &#8220;fazed&#8221; not &#8220;phased&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.fudgewine.com/2006/12/02/people-its-fazed-not-phased/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fudgewine.com/2006/12/02/people-its-fazed-not-phased/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:38:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pet Peeves]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fudgewine.com/2006/12/02/people-its-fazed-not-phased/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Have you noticed that the incorrect use of the word &#8220;phase&#8221; seems to be reaching epidemic proportions? (There&#8217;s a vocabulary refresher here if you need it.)  For a quick illustration, do a Google News search on &#8220;not phased&#8221; and check how much the popular press loves to use it incorrectly, particularly on the sports [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Have you noticed that the incorrect use of the word &#8220;phase&#8221; seems to be reaching epidemic proportions? (There&#8217;s a vocabulary refresher <a href="http://www.iolani.honolulu.hi.us/Keables/KeablesGuide/PartThree/Letters/P.htm#phase">here</a> if you need it.)  For a quick illustration, do a <a href="http://news.google.com/news?q=%22not+phased%22">Google News search on &#8220;not phased&#8221;</a> and check how much the popular press loves to use it incorrectly, particularly on the sports pages. <a href="http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/111906/ope_6307175.shtml">Wayne Ezell offers half an explanation at the Florida Times-Union</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Our July headline &#8220;GM: DaimlerChrysler says it&#8217;s not phased&#8221; was grating for Mimi Grenville, who wondered whether editors knew the difference between phased and fazed. &#8220;Somehow there needs to be some proofreading,&#8221; she said. </p>
<p>Back in the day, newspapers had proofreaders who reviewed stories, headlines and entire pages, and corrected mistakes. No more. Proofreaders were ushered out of most newsrooms when computers appeared. </p>
<p>Now most pages are &#8220;proofed&#8221; by an editor, usually after one or more other editors have edited stories, written headlines and placed them on a page. The second or third set of eyes is supposed to see every page, but when deadlines loom or editors are in a hurry, pages don&#8217;t get a careful review. At other times, bleary-eyed copy editors miss stuff &#8211; or fail to use spell check.</p>
<p>The main culprit is carelessness, though. That coupled with a failure to make near-flawless copy and headlines a top priority.</p></blockquote>
<p>Maybe, but I can&#8217;t help wondering about our public schools.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fudgewine.com/2006/12/02/people-its-fazed-not-phased/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

