Reply To: On losing Free

[templar007 52376xp 0]

I found this article and found it interesting……….

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Which of us media ewoks gets it right? Here are the publications, ranked unscientifically by Google search result for both “wookie” and “wookiee.”

Gawker has 812 wookiee to 561 wookie. Pro-wookiee ratio: 1.45.

The Wall Street Journal has 36 wookiee to 45 wookie. Pro-wookiee ratio: 0.80.

The New York Times has 99 wookiee to 128 wookie. Pro-wookiee ratio: 0.77.

The Huffington Post has 685 wookiee to 1, 110 wookie. Pro-wookiee ratio: 0.62.

BuzzFeed has 126 wookiee to 239 wookie. Pro-wookiee ratio: 0.53.

The Associated Press has 0 wookiee to 1 wookie. Pro-wookiee ratio: 0.0. This is the best media organization, notwithstanding its scant coverage of Kashyyyk-based Star Wars sidekicks.

But, you know, the person without sin casting thermal detonators and all that: Inverse is wookie 5 to wookiee 1. Pro-wookiee ratio: 0.2. Dammit, guys.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

—h##ps://www.inverse.com/article/7917-stop-misspelling-the-word-wookiee-you-jabronis—

(I’ve converted the https as I couldn’t remember if links in the forum were allowed)

 

Interesting how this forum takes us down rabbit holes all the time!