This is the sort of trouble you're asking for when you go sliding down the all-initial-caps slope:
The Employee Freedom Action Committee (EFAC) continued its $30 million dollar¹ campaign with a new television advertisement premiering during tonight’s Presidential Debate coverage. EFAC is spending $2 million airing the ad which, in addition to running during tonight’s debate, will run heavily in seven states that EFAC has been targeting since May. The campaign has criticized Senators and candidates who support the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).
Got that? The EFAC is criticizing the EFCA, getting all up in its FACE, you might say.
Still, it was nice to see 1972 presidential candidate George McGovern, now 86, taking a righteous stand in the ad. Even though I still have no idea who's on first.
Read the story and watch the ad at LaborPains.org.
___
¹ Sic. You don't need "dollar" when you use the dollar symbol.
"Got that? The EFAC is criticizing the EFCA, getting all up in its FACE, you might say."
...Did you read about this at an internet CAFE?
Posted by: Robert Dodge | October 08, 2008 at 05:36 PM
I couldn't help but think about EFCA and EFAC's stance on the CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards.
I'm partial to making sure the reader understands I'm talking about DOLLARS, so I like to go with $30$ million dollars $.
Posted by: Orange | October 08, 2008 at 08:59 PM
Welcome to my world. It's amazing how much government folks love their abbreviations. I've seen sentences in which every noun was an abbreviation. Seriously. And I've seen reports in which an abbreviation is introduced, only to be used ONCE in the entire document. What's the point? Why give your readers a headache if you don't have to?
I think that THEY think abbreviations dress up the report -- make it seem more formal and edumacated. Bah!
Posted by: Editrix | October 09, 2008 at 06:39 AM