Ridiculous Typos & Piss-Poor Proof-Reading

Bad Bungle

Dingo took my tray bake.
Joined
Oct 13, 2018
Messages
1,318
Likes
3,455
Points
154
Location
The Chilterns
In danger of going off thread but I looked up another famous bible - the Breeches Bible - (1579): Genesis Chapter III Verse 7 reads: "Then the eies of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed figge tree leaves together, and made themselves breeches." In the King James Version of 1611, "breeches" was changed to "aprons" "
Then found the headline:

Geneva Breeches Bible - worth £3,000 - STOLEN and replaced with 99p copy

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/stolen-geneva-breeches-bible-3000-2879813
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
27,633
Likes
29,867
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
I'm not sure this is a case of proof-reading as opposed to logic-checking, but I've just been reminded of a classic Daily Star error.

The article was subsequently re-written to promote the purchase as a good investment, but the author of the original seemed to believe that a five-inch naval gun was literally five inches long. Or, as they memorably had it, 'the length of a toothbrush'.

I'm no expert on firearms, but the five-inch refers to the bore of the weapon (so the internal diameter of its barrel), not its length.

And before you excuse the writer, imagine if it did refer to weapon length. And then imagine mounting that on a naval vessel.

Would that not start alarm bells ringing?

EQ4x20oWkAA31Pi.jpeg
 

tuco

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Feb 11, 2020
Messages
144
Likes
291
Points
63
Location
south of south
I'm not sure this is a case of proof-reading as opposed to logic-checking, but I've just been reminded of a classic Daily Star error.

The article was subsequently re-written to promote the purchase as a good investment, but the author of the original seemed to believe that a five-inch naval gun was literally five inches long. Or, as they memorably had it, 'the length of a toothbrush'.

I'm no expert on firearms, but the five-inch refers to the bore of the weapon (so the internal diameter of its barrel), not its length.

And before you excuse the writer, imagine if it did refer to weapon length. And then imagine mounting that on a naval vessel.

Would that not start alarm bells ringing?

View attachment 23295
That would make it a one caliber gun ! The length of a gun barrel is measured in how many times the internal diameter of the gun is long, so a 5 inch gun of 40 calibers would be 40 x 5 inch's long .
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
37,883
Likes
25,499
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
I'm not sure this is a case of proof-reading as opposed to logic-checking, but I've just been reminded of a classic Daily Star error.

The article was subsequently re-written to promote the purchase as a good investment, but the author of the original seemed to believe that a five-inch naval gun was literally five inches long. Or, as they memorably had it, 'the length of a toothbrush'.

I'm no expert on firearms, but the five-inch refers to the bore of the weapon (so the internal diameter of its barrel), not its length.

And before you excuse the writer, imagine if it did refer to weapon length. And then imagine mounting that on a naval vessel.

Would that not start alarm bells ringing?

View attachment 23295
I hope 'Margi Murphy' has never found work as a journalist again. What a howler.
 
Top