Yahoo 'news'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marble
  • Start date Start date
M

Marble

Guest
Honestly, the biased tripe in favour of Sir Alex Ferguson in this article imo....

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/15092011/58/premier-league-papers-fergie-clashes-dalglish-clan.html

For whoever has written this article, to make the comment that ,"After a superb performance from Anders Lindegaard in Lisbon, Cates had the audacity to query whether he and not summer signing David De Gea would start against the Blues," is just not right.

I really do wonder about a lot of these internet news sites, and more specifically, how to remove them from my homepage. And no, I am not part of the Kenny Dalgleish 'clan'!:o
 
Last edited:
In three years time I'll know these things Rory, the journo degree finished, god willing!

For some reason I was under the impression audacity meant asking something which really shouldn't have been asked. Could you explain how it is a tongue in cheek dig at Fergie though?
 
Last edited:
Imo, the writer uses the word 'audacity' to convey the view that he/she thinks the question was a perfectly fair and reasoned question to ask. Although it is 8 years since I finished my journo degree.
 
If only the word 'audacity' and 'perfectly fair and reasoned' went together it would of all made more sense to me, DJ.
 
The word "Audacity" is used ironically - the writer implies that Fergie responded as if the question was posed audaciously, when it was (in his view) perfectly legitimate.
 
davidjohnson said:
Imo, the writer uses the word 'audacity' to convey the view that he/she thinks the question was a perfectly fair and reasoned question to ask. Although it is 8 years since I finished my journo degree.
Click to expand...

I can see that degree now:

David Johnson

BA Journalism, 2:1p~.
 
rorydelargy said:
The word "Audacity" is used ironically - the writer implies that Fergie responded as if the question was posed audaciously, when it was (in his view) perfectly legitimate.
Click to expand...

Yes, having checked this out you could say the above is true.

However, you have inexplicably linked the words 'audaciously' and 'audacity' in the above post, when from what I can see the two may have variant meanings.

E.G. "The SAS was in a audacious rescue attempt" etc, well it isn't really that ironic is it? The irony in that common usage of the word audacious doesn't seem plentiful.

Personally, I would usually use the word audacity to describe someone 'having a cheek to do something' etc, 'having the audacity to give the man a fiver for running him over and breaking his leg', whereas I wouldn't, and couldn't use the word audacious in the same way. I'm sure many simpletons will have read this article and thought exactly the same thing as me.
 
Last edited:
Marble said:
However, you have inexplicably linked the words 'audaciously' and 'audacity' in the above post, when from what I can see the two may have variant meanings.
Click to expand...

Nothing inexplicable there. Audaciously simply means "with audacity". I'm not aware of another adverb from the same root, so there's no attempt to alter the meaning. Audacious can, as you say, mean both daring and impertinent, and the author could just as well have used "impertinence" for "audacity". Instead, he has had the audacity to use "audacity" in place of "impertinence", and the impertinence not to use good old "cheek". The fella certainly has some nerve, cheek, and possibly plenty of neck, to boot.
 
Don't people buy dictionaries or thesauruses (thesauri) any more? "Audacious", "audaciousness", "audacity" mean can mean daring, bold, or impudent, with context being the key to meaning. In the context of satire/irony/spoof it will read sarcastically against its meaning, as in "clad in full armour, he set out audaciously to hunt the mouse".

Jeez - you don't need to be a hack to understand plain English. Buy a good full-size dictionary (don't buy truncated ones) like Collins or Oxford, Roget's Thesaurus and invest in the Reader's Digest The Right Word at the Right Time if you're going to deal in words, as three basic must-haves. Chuck in Brewer's Names, too, for a better grip on people, places, and things.
 
Back
Top