Any idea why they are calling it that? This is a Nor-easter; they originate in the ocean.
Assumptions.
Just the other day, I was watching a documentary that included a brief item about the subject‘s military history, and while the numerical designation of the unit was correct, the narrator referred to it as a “battalion”. It was not a battalion, it was a Regimental Combat Team, RCT. Danged civilians. Grrrrrrr.
~
And here I was thinking that I was one of the only people who thought that way! For quite some time now, I was considering posting a daily entry for the worst example of so-called “journalism” . . .
~
Heard recently:
. . . the suspect, who was hiding inside the building, snuck up behind the security guard and absolutely shot him in the back, killing him . . .
. . . showing that the United States is the best country in the nation . . .
Part of why I stopped reading/watching most news decades ago.
I first thought that they were frustrated writers, who enjoyed leaving people with "cliff hanger" endings - by not following through on obvious questions raised by the story.
Then I realized they were just lazy and unprofessional.
Among my main beefs are radio presenters, archaeologists, musicians, art-critics and others who should know better, talking of a building's acoustic (singular, i.e. the adjective, when they mean acoustics, the noun), and of it being resonant. They really mean reverberant, of course, but should know that - I wonder if they know the difference between echoes and reverberation, either.
(A large room can be resonant, but at a few- or fractional- Hertz frequencies, and if a very large we might feel it as a breathing effect in a doorway. We would certainly not hear it in a way we would recognise as a sound.)
In somewhat similar vein, epicentre instead of centre - that attempt to sound clever by high-jacking a geology term can totally change the message from its intended meaning, suggesting the speaker does not really understand the subject either. Mind you, often I doubt he or she does!