Another quick poll for you this morning: When you want to say something is completely full, which phrase would you use?
The last poll was about what OS (operating system) you use most. This time, I’d like to know which OS you prefer. (If you haven’t taken the first one yet, go here.)
I’m going to start posting a series of poll questions so I can get to know you better. The better I know you, the better I can post the kind of content that helps you out.
First question: What’s the operating system you use the most. (I’ll be asking about your preferred operating system later.)
(By the way, you can hover your mouse pointer over the question to read the whole thing. dPolls doesn’t allow me to adjust the width of their poll widget.)
Feel free to add more information in the comments. Thank you!
Because my post, “How to Write E-mail that Sucks,” garnered several comments, I thought we could discuss another e-mail issue. Over on the Business Writing blog, Lynn Gaertner-Johnston raises the question of whether subject-only e-mails are good or bad. She had someone write to her complaining about this practice, but she doesn’t think they’re necessarily a bad thing.
I’ve gotten them before, and they don’t usually bother me. For example, I had one co-worker who would send out messages withe subjects like “I’ll be out of the office this afternoon” and nothing in the body. After all, there wasn’t much more to say; the subject let me know all I needed. (She did usually append “[EOM]” to the subject to indicate that that was the end of the message.)
Of course, like all other things, they could be abused. For example, some messages can’t be condensed into a single line, but you can bet someone will try in a vain attempt to gain some sort of false economy.
What do you think? Good, bad, or indifferent?
In last Sunday’s Parade magazine, Marilyn vos Savant said it’s time to push some spelling reform through:
This month marks the 100th anniversary of the attempt by Theodore Roosevelt—a poor speller himself—to reform English spelling. The President thought that spelling words such as “colour” with an extra letter (the u) was downright silly. So he issued a directive to the Government Printing Office to adopt 300 reformed spellings. Despite many notable proponents, Congress overturned the directive. With the exception of a few changes that already were creeping into use—“honour” became honor, and “centre” became center, for example—spelling reform flopped. A century has passed since then. Time to step up the pace! Let’s press on with thru, tho and altho, which I agree are excellent choices.
What do you think, dear readers? Should we let nature take its course—allowing the gradual forces of popular usage take care of things (bearing in mind that popular usage can also bring us abominations like irregardless—or should we have an organized campaign push for accelerated spelling reform?