Uh.... Really? Do tell....

RimRat · **Posted:** Sun Jan 25, 2004 11:04 pm

NASAâ€™s Opportunity rover zipped its first pictures of Mars to Earth early Sunday, delighting and puzzling scientists just hours after the unmanned spacecraft successfully landed on the red planet three weeks after its identical twin.

Dapper Dan · **Joined:** Fri Dec 12, 2003 1:01 am **Posts:** 273

Granted, anyone who pays attention to the world will know that this is an unmanned spacecraft. But some readers really are that ignorant. With Bush talking recently about sending Americans to Mars, it's certainly possible that a few people will be confused.

RimRat · **Posted:** Mon Jan 26, 2004 6:12 pm

Surely you jest....

Dapper Dan · **Joined:** Fri Dec 12, 2003 1:01 am **Posts:** 273

No, I'm serious. Some people really are that ignorant. Spend a few hours in a barroom that opens at 7 a.m. if you don't believe me.

ShiningPath · **Posted:** Tue Jan 27, 2004 11:35 am

I agree with Dan. "Unmanned" is just one word; the informed reader can run right past it, while the uninformed will be greatly enlightened. Let's face it, most people are pretty stupid and pay scant attention to what's going on. The Chicago Tribune ran a story the other day featuring a woman who attended a rally for Sen. John Edwards because she thought he was psychic John Edward, the host of the TV show "Crossing Over" who claims to communicate with the dead.

wordygurdy · **Posted:** Tue Jan 27, 2004 11:49 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ShiningPath:
I agree with Dan. "Unmanned" is just one word; the informed reader can run right past it, while the uninformed will be greatly enlightened. Let's face it, most people are pretty stupid and pay scant attention to what's going on. The Chicago Tribune ran a story the other day featuring a woman who attended a rally for Sen. John Edwards because she thought he was psychic John Edward, the host of the TV show "Crossing Over" who claims to communicate with the dead.<hr></blockquote>Wow. That's pretty sad.

DominEditrix · **Posted:** Tue Jan 27, 2004 7:11 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by RimRat:
Surely you jest....<hr></blockquote>Results of an unscientific poll for which I solicited responses from the Persons from Porlock who interrupted my day:Number 1: The We-have-a-previous-business-relationship-long-distance-carrier-telemarketer:"Hello! This is Cindi* from AT&T. I'm calling...""Hi there! Say, isn't it great that we sent a man to Mars already!"[pause] "I'm calling to offer...""That space shuttle is pretty amazing, isn't it."[pause] "Um - didn't the space shuttle crash or something?""Maybe they had a spare. What do you think about having a man on Mars?""Um... I thought it was a dog."Number 2: Young male attempting to hawk ghod-knows-what through door that remained stubbornly locked throughout conversation:"Ma'am, I'm trying to win a contest...""That's nice. What do you think about the US landing a man on Mars?""Huh?""You know, the Mars landing.""Huh?""Didn't you see the President's speech about landing a man on Mars?""Huh?"* I am assuming the spelling, given the relentless perkiness of her voice.[ January 27, 2004: Message edited by: DominEditrix ]

RimRat · **Posted:** Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:26 pm

Cripes, Domi. That's hysterical. Maybe I should answer the phone in here more often.But are you sure we're talking about the same cross-section of people? Those don't sound like they can read, never mind read newspapers. Or want to.My point was merely that those who are interested enough to read the story already know that it's an unmanned mission. I considered -- and consider -- the word to be redundant in that context.But hey ... I've been wrong before.

DominEditrix · **Posted:** Tue Jan 27, 2004 11:21 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by RimRat:
But are you sure we're talking about the same cross-section of people? Those don't sound like they can read, never mind read newspapers. Or want to.My point was merely that those who are interested enough to read the story already know that it's an unmanned mission. I considered -- and consider -- the word to be redundant in that context.<hr></blockquote>I suspect that Cindi reads the astrology column when there's a paper handy and the contest lunk probably glances at the sports page. They may not be the demographic that reads the paper for news, but you'd think some of the TV news-at-11 teasers would have penetrated re: the Mars landing. Ah, well...However, for future reference-seekers, the manned/unmanned status may not be as clear, and the word not as duplicative of known fact as you think. Take pity on those who google 25 years from now for a school report.What's driving me nuts is the implication that this is the first time we've landed on Mars. I may be entering my anecdotage, but I distinctly remember sitting in a room at JPL during the Viking missions watching pictures come in of Utopia Planitia.D.

majorbabs · **Posted:** Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:57 pm

I'm surprised no one has yet cited as "unmanned" as politically incorrect -- like postman or spaceman or policeman. (I've been politically incorrect most of my life but hear constantly from The Other Kind.)Just for the record, is there another choice that doesn't indicate gender? Uncrewed? Unstaffed? Unhumaned? Or does that just make people long for that long pull of aged single-malt scotch that much more?

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Sun Feb 01, 2004 4:53 pm

Crewless gets a stack of matches on Google though it has yet to get the nod in Australian English.

DominEditrix · **Posted:** Sun Feb 29, 2004 7:08 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Paul Wiggins:
Crewless gets a stack of matches on Google though it has yet to get the nod in Australian English.<hr></blockquote>
From The Weekend Australian:
<blockquote>quote:<hr> PC up in the airPOLITICAL correctness has reached new heights in the rarefied atmosphere of the national capital. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute, one of the leading defence think tanks, has changed the name of the unmanned aerial vehicle to the uninhabited aerial vehicle in order not to cause offence â€“ presumably to all those unwomaned aerial vehicles flying around. <hr></blockquote>

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Sun Feb 29, 2004 12:27 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by majorbabs:
I'm surprised no one has yet cited as "unmanned" as politically incorrect -- like postman or spaceman or policeman. (I've been politically incorrect most of my life but hear constantly from The Other Kind.)Just for the record, is there another choice that doesn't indicate gender? Uncrewed? Unstaffed? Unhumaned? Or does that just make people long for that long pull of aged single-malt scotch that much more?<hr></blockquote>Just beware of using the word "emasculate" to describe what one political party does to another's legislation. My girlfriend nearly threatened to emasculate me when she saw that usage on one of my pages the next day.

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Sun Feb 29, 2004 4:23 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by DominEditrix:
From The Weekend Australian:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC up in the air
POLITICAL correctness has reached new heights in the rarefied atmosphere of the national capital. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute, one of the leading defence think tanks, has changed the name of the unmanned aerial vehicle to the uninhabited aerial vehicle in order not to cause offence – presumably to all those unwomaned aerial vehicles flying around. [QB][/QB]<hr></blockquote>Tee hee. Good to see the Murdoch press running true to form.

Testy Copy Editors

Uh.... Really? Do tell....

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links