The link is here , though I'll have to copy paste some in here because I can't believe this will remain for long.
quote:A German archaeologist says he has found relics of "humanity's first war" in the north east of Syria in the form of balls of stone used as ammunition in the 4th century BC, the Die Zeit newspaper says in its edition due for publication on Thursday.
quote:Reichel said that almost 6,000 years ago the city, whose fortifications were three metres (ten feet) thick, was besieged and reduced to ashes probably by attackers from southern Mesopotamia.
So... 400 (4th century BC) + 2000 (21st century AD) = 6000 years? I'm not nitpicking over some small word usage, doesn't this impact the story pretty significantly to mistake the 4th century BC with the 40th? Oddly enough, I caught the mistake when I read that they honestly thought there were no wars before 4th century BC. Such a silly notion.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, according to a recent study (See Archaeology journal), 51% of Americans believe humans and dinosaurs coëxisted and fully 85% believe that Archaeologists study dinosaurs.
I told a friend of mine that this made me proud, becouse, if your going to do national ignorance, you had better do it well.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Another common one: When a share costing $10 goes up to $11, some journalists will write of a '110% increase.'
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
While this is not good, I think it is a lot better than, say, reporting something which is a gratuitious failure of reporting ethics. Like spreading propoganda for a terrorist network without researching it.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quote: A huge battle destroyed one of the world’s earliest cities...Hamoukar...excavators retrieved more than 1,200 smaller, oval-shaped bullets (about an inch long and an inch and a half in diameter) and some 120 larger round clay balls (two and half to four inches in diameter). "This clearly was no minor skirmish. This was 'Shock and Awe' in the Fourth Millennium B.C."
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: Hey, according to a recent study (See Archaeology journal), 51% of Americans believe humans and dinosaurs coëxisted and fully 85% believe that Archaeologists study dinosaurs.
You honestly put a diaresis over the e in coexisted. <shakes head, stunned>
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rather than not knowing 400 + 2000, I think it's more likely the reporter left off the zero in 40th century.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I kind of thought I made that point in the my original post...
quote:...mistake the 4th century BC with the 40th?
Also hinted at the fact that even the implied suggestion that the first war was in 400 BC was funny, since the Greeks had had their turn and the Romans were getting going by that time.
Though I'd be willing to accept that they meant to the 4th millennia BC as well.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is that punctuation still correct? I thought it was obsolete."
Far from obsolete, but growing uncommon. The New Yorker still uses it always as does MIT's Technology Review, while the Economist uses it if the pronunciation might be unclear, I am not so consistent although I think it helps none-native speakers and also looks kind of neat.
Your for You're is always incorrect however, my bad.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just for the record, most of the mainstream American press doesn't trust AFP. They screw stuff like this up a lot and never seem to correct it. While most places will pick up a New York Times or Washington Post story (meaning they rewrite it and give credit to the original news organization without actually verifying the info), they won't do it for AFP (or, these days, UPI, since they were bought by Moon & cronies).
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
AFP = whom? Agence France-Presse or American Free Press. The later seems unlikely as it is hardly mainstream.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So they had bullets int he fourth century now???? So does that mean that gun powder was invented before then????
I'm so very confused, but that seems to be happening a lot lately, senility must be setting in early for me???? Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: Is that punctuation still correct? I thought it was obsolete."
Far from obsolete, but growing uncommon. The New Yorker still uses it always as does MIT's Technology Review, while the Economist uses it if the pronunciation might be unclear, I am not so consistent although I think it helps none-native speakers and also looks kind of neat.
I see. It does add a little flavour, doesn't it?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
