08:53
In there, there is this part that got my attention:
> Wikipedia “Due diligence” is an investigation of a business or person prior to signing a contract, or an act with a certain standard of care.”
So I took a short tour on a few Wikipedia pages: Standard of care, Due diligence, and Channel check.
> In tort law, the standard of care is the only degree of prudence and caution required of an individual who is under a duty of care.
> In certain industries and professions, the standard of care is determined by the standard that would be exercised by the reasonably prudent manufacturer of a product, or the reasonably prudent professional in that line of work. Such a test (known as the "Bolam Test") is used to determine whether a doctor is liable for medical malpractice.
> The standard of care is important because it determines the level of negligence required to state a valid cause of action. In the business world the standard of care taken can be described as Due Diligence or performing a Channel Check.
> Due diligence is an investigation of a business or person prior to signing a contract, or an act with a certain standard of care.
> In financial analysis, a channel check is third-party research on a company's business based on collecting information from the distribution channels of the company. It may be conducted in order to value the company, to perform due diligence in various contexts, and the like. Industries where channel checks are more often conducted include retail, technology, commodities, etc.
Back to the
article, the thing that interested me the most in that post is the author (of the post, Cheryl King, a playwright, director and actor) reading a script that was full of spelling errors, and still finding the script brilliant in the end.
> I picked up Script 13. I liked the title immediately. The first line was powerful. On line three I grinned.
> Then came an atrocious misspelling. They’re for their. I winced–kept reading. “Bad proofreading, that’s all. I want to like this writer.”
> But the typos, and spelling errors, kept coming. “The material is punchy and bright. I like the way this writer thinks – but this failure to notice all these errors is worrisome.
> If the writer doesn’t care about the form, doesn’t take the time to polish and refine the script, isn’t that a sign of laziness or lack of ambition, or lack of respect for the reader?”
> But the script was really good, so I kept reading. Finally, the grumbling grammarian inside me sat down and shut up. I kept reading—grinning. “Where be your typos now?”
> I reached the end, put down my tablet, picked up my assessment pad and wrote, “Writing – 10. Brilliant. Stream of consciousness. Full of spelling errors.”
In "A Sample of Amateur Writing", there is this great quote:
> Readers are not looking for great writing; they’re looking for a great story.
"And, Dick, all kinds of queer folk live in the trunk of the Faraway Tree," said Jo."
The is not capital here, which means it is not the part of the name?
Why is the used here?
So far, the question about the difference between the terms from the title was asked several times here and on ELU but I'm not asking about the grammatical difference my question is about semantics.
Please let me make it clearer:
In my language, there's a clear distinction between the terms so ...
Language Overflow
