The Scourge continues

I don't hit the National Geographic website as frequently as I should, but that Antarctica article was very revealing.  How can global warming be denied if all that ice is melting?  But Mr. Beagles implied that Niagara Falls would become a trickle, and I don't understand why that should be the case; it's more than 300 feet above sea level.  Did I miss something?

-----

"Pedantic scourge," huh?  I'll ignore that harsh assessment as I never did receive my copy of the Official Beaglesonian Style Guide, which surely delineates error tolerance.  Should I point out that Tiny Tim married Miss Vicki (on the Tonight Show, no less) rather than Twiggy, or that some people forget that last 'L' in McConnell's name?  Where should the bar be set?  I let a lot of little things (like typos) slip through the cracks but I think factual errors should be corrected.  Perhaps Mr. Objective Reality can agree.  We all have access to the same information; our different experiences will cause different interpretations in many cases but facts should remain factual.

-----

But wait, is Old Dog claiming that the incident with the moth never really happened?  Preliminary internet research is inconclusive.

How can you say that?  Did I not clearly state The image (available online) of the moth taped to the page of the report is pretty funny,...?  If your preliminary internet research is inconclusive I can only infer that your Google Fu is weak, my friend.  A Google Image search (try "computer bug") will show the page in question; the original technical log book is in the Smithsonian.

And, as I continue my pedantic reign of terror, I seem to recall that using parentheses within parentheses is considered bad form.  Brackets and braces should be used but I don't recall in which order.  I could be wrong on this one but it's not important enough to me to research further, as I seldom need that type of nested phrasing.  I'll stick with my clumsy use of commas and semi-colons.  Mu.

-----

I'm beginning to enjoy Trump's tap dancing regarding "fake news," especially in light of those fake Time magazine covers.  He is now blaming them on some unknown news agents in an effort to discredit him, which is quite a stretch since some of those bogus covers have been around for more than five years.  The cherry on top of this sundae is that the bar code on the cover is the same one used on a website for a tutorial to create, drum roll please, fake Time magazine covers.  But maybe that's fake news, too.

-----

Oh, Uncle Ken, I saw what you did with that reference to the monkeys typing the history book.  I wonder if Mr. Beagles also noticed the fine, perhaps the finest I've seen, example of your subtle wit.