a reply to: seasonal
Given the proximity of the keys involved with this particular error, I cannot see what the fuss is about.
Suffice to say, that there is absolutely no reason to think that this is anything other than one of the most easily explicable typos in history, and
before anyone jumps down my neck about how Yahoo ought to have better proof reading, I feel it necessary to point out the following.
Even in newspapers, broadsheet newspapers (not tabloids) the previously accepted and rigorous quality of proof reading, not to mention the grammar
and spelling standards expected of columnists, journalists, and even contributors to the letters pages, have evaporated over recent years, with even
publications such as the Times and the Daily Mail (the latter of which has always been a rag full of hate speech, but used to be a rag full of very
well written hate speech), routinely failing to pass stories and columns through an effective regime of editorial alterations, to correct any failures
in the original authors grammar and spelling.
Frankly speaking, if publications once much respected for the quality of the writing within, if not necessarily the contents of those writings, are
now accepting poorly written, badly spelled, grammatically defective dross for publication, there is no reason to expect a mere web publication such
as Yahoo provides, to hold to a high standard with regard to spelling and grammar. Simply put, editorial standards cost time and money, and Yahoo,
much like many other web publications, like to save as much of the stuff which makes their world go round as possible. Hook that up to the perceived
need to have stories and commentary hit the wire as fast as possible, and you have a recipe for this sort of unfortunate, but no doubt absolutely
Reading more than that into it, without some suggestive evidence to support the notion that this was a deliberate mistake, as opposed to an
accidental one, would be reactionary and unrealistic as a result.