Comments on: Corporate Graphic Design Guide

By: Christian

Christian — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:53:14 +0000

Beware: they might take it as a guideline instead.

By: Uncle Richard

Uncle Richard — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:38:10 +0000

If you define “pregnant” as being equivalent to “impregnated”, then there is not likely to be any levels of variation. You either are, or are not. I am not, for example. My wife is, for another example. However, if you use “pregnant” to describe the characteristics and bodily processes that occur during gestation, then there can certainly be a case for using qualitative terms (such as a little, very, sort of) My wife, being due next week, is VERY pregnant, meaning she is as big as a house, unable to get comfortable in any position, has constant heartburn, and can’t go for more than 2 hours without having to “go”. My girlfriend, however, is only a little pregnant, being only 2 months along. She gets a little sick in the morning, she is still able to see her feet, her tastes in food are just starting to change, and she’s a little moody. It’s all in the usage.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:05:36 +0000

Some might say… too unique.

By: LB

LB — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:49:51 +0000

So where do you stand on the “very pregnant” issue? Cause I would have thought that you can either be pregnant, or not pregnant, and yet people say “Oh – she’s very pregnant” (and that sort of thing) all the time.

By: omglolyeay!

omglolyeay! — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 06:05:56 +0000

yep. true dat.

By: boom

boom — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 06:01:34 +0000

hear hear

By: boom

boom — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 06:00:17 +0000

lowest common denominator = inherent fail

By: Pixel8r

Pixel8r — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:42:02 +0000

PsychoGryphon – is a grammar committee member.

By: PsychoGryphon

PsychoGryphon — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:25:27 +0000

It goes without saying that DaveG has every right to comment. However, when he criticizes someone elses work and bases that criticisim on incomplete/ inaccurate information… well, then he just comes off as an idiot.

One of the definitions of “unique” according to Dictionary.com (the end-all, be-all source for definitions /sarcasim) is as follows:

5. not typical; unusual: She has a very unique smile.

The entry goes on to say the following about usage:

[...]The earliest meanings of unique when it entered English around the
beginning of the 17th century were “single, sole” and “having no equal.” By
the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical,
unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared: The foliage on
the late-blooming plants is more unique than that on the earlier varieties.
The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is
standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

So, yes, something CAN be “too unique.”

If you really want to nit-pick this piece… I’d mention the capitalization inconsistancies – but that’s just me. I personally think it is a wonderful graph!

By: Bill K.

Bill K. — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:47:07 +0000

DaveG’s penchant for grammar is unique.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:19:10 +0000

Just because something can’t be too unique doesn’t mean a Committee can’t say it is, which is probably part of the point.

By: LB

LB — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 08:48:52 +0000

I think he’s right too. It’s something that bugs me endlessly on TV, in books, on the radio – pretty much any time someone says “It’s extremely unique” or “The most unique feature” or “extremely historical” I have to resist the urge to yell at the tv/radio/book for being a dumb-ass.

And I was planning on commenting on this, but DaveG (whoever he might be) got there first.

By: zemme

zemme — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:44:02 +0000

ooohh you shouldnt have said that.
you set yourself up for a bunch of “stop being a hardass when its just here for laughs” and “other people think its funny so shut up” comments.
but not from me; this country supports your right to free speech – and [usually] i do too.
oh and atleast they used the correct “to”. whether on purpose or not i do not know/care.

By: DaveG

DaveG — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 23:33:07 +0000

Something can’t be too unique. It’s either unique or not.

By: zemme

zemme — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:22:29 +0000

WIN!!Q

By: SilentKnight

SilentKnight — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:10:36 +0000

The purpose of a committee is similar to a senate, IMO. It creates a group of diverse people with differing opinions that must somehow come to an agreement on how things are to proceed. Usually this results in removing everything that offends or is not desired by any member on the comitee, which ends up creating something that neither shocks nor pleases anyone.

By: "Design by Committee" is our company slogan

"Design by Committee" is our company slogan — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:03:07 +0000

Best. Graph. EVER.

By: Kir

Kir — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:49:48 +0000

This is both very funny, and very sad!

By: chuck

chuck — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:42:33 +0000

Brilliant!

I’ve come to the conclusion that committees, while SEEMING to be a great idea, are actually the bane of innovation and progress.

Perhaps that is the secret agenda of all committees? To hold status quo?

By: Bored

Bored — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:17:01 +0000

Hey, I have an idea – instead of an artistic book cover – lets just slap another barely clad waxy chested man on the front, like every other book – BRILLIANT!

fail…

By: ellahydew

ellahydew — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 15:51:34 +0000

What happens if I print this out and hand it in as the coversheet to my next committee reviewed project? Think maybe they’ll get the hint?

By: Matthew

Matthew — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 15:36:31 +0000

Wow. Do you work here too?

By: Kevin Williamson

Kevin Williamson — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 15:32:39 +0000

And if the committee fails to destroy the creativity, enlarge the committee!

By: design hack

design hack — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 15:25:24 +0000

wow… this made me laugh, then cry…

yes Karen, it is VERY sad but true.

By: Karen

Karen — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:22:02 +0000

Sad but true!

By: monkey999

monkey999 — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:19:28 +0000

Brilliant!