The Grant Street Embarrassment gets caught up in Super Bob's questions. Odd thing is, I don't think Luke even realizes he gets caught.
Looks like Bob (and Bob, can I call you "Bob"?) is probing the limits of Ravenstahl's position, vis a vis his by now debunked TV ad, that he took credit for lowering some city taxes when in fact he was legally mandated to do so.
The opener:
Q (Bob Mayo) : "What exactly is it -- that you apologized about something? What was the apology for?"Apart from the content, I think the thing that most grates on my brain is Luke's use of pluralis maiestatis - (aka the Royal, Victorian or Editorial "We"). The use of the term "ourself" only solidifies the pluralis maiestatis.
A (Mayor Ravenstahl) : "Well, what we'll do -- it was basically around, it was basically around the question of reducing taxes. The parking tax and the gross receipts tax. And the question was that we were suggesting that we were taking the entire credit for that. I said last night that the state clearly did help. And we'll actually adjust our ad today to say that we helped reduce the tax, rather than taking credit for it ourself. So, it was just a small, minor nuance, and something that we've taken care of in our campaign advertisement."
Mark Twain once reportedly said:
Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial "we."Luke must think rather highly of himself, uh, themself.
And someone should let them know that "small minor nuance" is a double redundancy (a redundant redundancy, if you will). Ever heard of any big nuances? Any major nuances? A "minor nuance" is redundant enough, but calling it "small" in addition is just, redundant again.
Go read Super Bob. You'll see the Grant Street Embarrassment say that in theory he's required to follow the law, he probably wouldn't have changed the ad and that they only changed it "in the interest of clarity."
Bob clarifies things, to be sure. Go find out how.
No comments:
Post a Comment