Skip to comments.YouTube pranksters dupe anti-vaxxer Piers Corbyn into appearing to accept fake £10,000 bundle of cash to focus his criticism on AstraZeneca's competitors
Posted on 07/31/2021 9:58:37 PM PDT by blueplum
Clip appears to show Piers agree to accept 'cash' from 'AstraZeneca shareholder'
Corbyn, a notorious anti-vaxxer, discusses deal to 'ignore' AZ in his campaigning
Pranksters suggest Corbyn focuses criticism on Moderna and Pfizer jabs instead
In exchange for ignoring AZ jab, pranksters gift Corbyn with fake £10k bundle
Piers Corbyn claims the video is 'heavily edited' with 'dishonest commentary'
...Manners then lifts out an envelope containing £10,000 in real cash and shows it to Piers Corbyn who says 'wow' and calls it 'fantastic'.
Pieters continues: 'This is obviously just a statement of intent. We'd love to keep funding you so there's £10,000 there.'...
...The video appears to show Corbyn writing down benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine, a jab that he had previously campaigned against.
The pranksters then use sleight of hand to switch out the envelope of real cash and swap it with one stuffed with monopoly money....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
That headline sucks grammatical ass.
clarity takes a back seat to sensationalism, or are you some kind of “information and communication matters” nazi?
Not a nazi, just OCD... lol.
The headline is grammatically flawless - if rather top-heavy. My only criticism would be the "into appearing to accept." My understanding is that he did, in fact, accept the bogus money.
I applaud the fact that it conveys the essence of the matter in relatively few words, that it doesn't "beat around the bush," but rather addresses the core controversy directly.
YouTube pranksters dupe anti-vaxxer, Piers Corbyn, into...Contradictory clauses can be grammatically sound?
He was duped, but appears to accept?Regardless, appreciate the reply.
YouTube pranksters dupe anti-vaxxer, Piers Corbyn, into...
The use of commas here (to signalize apposition) would definitely be FALSE!
If, however, the term "anti-vaxxer" had been proceeded by an "an"...
Full disclosure: I am a Technical Editor; my wife (who agrees with me) has a Master's in Linguistics.
I already criticized the use of the "appears to accept."
But, strictly speaking, that isn't a grammar error. It is more like a factual mistake.
But the ‘anti-vaxxer’ and ‘Piers’ refer to the same thing. How is that not an apposition?
>> that isn’t a grammar error. It is more like a factual mistake
Can’t be. It’s those who support the use of the vaccine in some populations that are bought and paid for not those who oppose the vaccine. I’ve been told that many times. Oops!
I see it now — “anti-vaxxer” in the form of an adjective.
But “an” before any adjective doesn’t necessarily work.
I asked alexander to hop on this thread and weigh-in on my objections to the structure of the title — definitely informative.
No vax issues here :)
An "an" would signalize* that (in that case) "anti-vaxxer" was a noun.
Re. "necessarily:" There is not always a perfect way to formulate a sentence (i.e., achieve grammatical perfection), and also remove all ambiguity, and also provide loads of info - one must sometimes make a compromise.
Let's also bear in mind that slightly different "rules" apply to / allowances should be made in the case of headlines.
After 40 years here in Germany, translating such texts into / out of German and Russian, one comes to appreciate such nuances. (Notice how I avoided a "Dangling Participle" there?)
*Note that I don't say, "would necessarily denote."
I forgot what this thread was about...
While those trying to cajole people into taking the vaccinations use taxpayer money to do so.
But how is that working out for those people who accepted to play the games for such incentives as paid scholarships to college, or inclusion into a million dollar lottery payout? Seems that they are now more susceptible to the so-called Delta variant.
So if the vaccinated are not protected, why are people demanding that all people get the vaccination? Especially when it's like playing Russian roulette where a perfectly healthy person just might be one who suffers a horrific adverse reaction, and possibly even death. This is not conspiracy mumbling, but rather documented evidence. What is really irritating is the cover-up as to the true extent of these adverse affects. Why do they find it necessary to engage in a cover-up?
>> After 40 years here in Germany, translating such texts into / out of German and Russian, one comes to appreciate such nuances.
Safe to say that it’s not clear how long you’ve been translating; however, 40 years in Germany has given you something to appreciate?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.