Log in

04 May 2008 @ 12:44 pm
An ad for "Hypercane" on the History Channel said this:

"A hypercane is basically a super hurricane."

Does anyone else get bothered by such empty sentences as these?
Current Location: myDorm
Current Mood: perturbed
Current Music: CCTV4
blackberet: cafeblackberet on May 4th, 2008 08:15 pm (UTC)
Aside from the silliness of redefining "hyper" as "super"...I'm all for the evolution of language and all, but here's a case where a word has just been made up unnecessarily. There is no reason not to call it, say, an "extremely large hurricane" except some meteorologist's pretension, and there are other snappy titles out there.
Scary The Davescarythedave on May 4th, 2008 10:48 pm (UTC)
The History Channel's poppiness these days kills me; I'm all for good/creative pitches for your products and shows, but the shows themselves are now about 10 or 20 per cent information with the remainder is what might be called "storytelling," though I think it's more like "showbiz."
yellowdartjosh on May 5th, 2008 04:06 pm (UTC)
The Discovery and History Channels often bother me with how they dumb down their information. There was some show on History the other day about "The Universe" in which they were describing Lyman-Alpha blobs, and they were being likened to jellyfish in such a way that curdled my blood.
Scary The Davescarythedave on May 5th, 2008 06:12 pm (UTC)
But remember when they used to be decent? reasonably worth watching?
yellowdartjosh on May 5th, 2008 06:14 pm (UTC)
You know, they still are, sometimes. The military stuff, yeah. But I feel that there's an exponential increase between how difficult the subject matter is and how much they sugar-coat it.