The owners of this fine establishment concede that “4” is a silly abbreviation for a word that’s only two characters longer than the number (and zero characters longer than the number and quotation marks). They refuse, however, to make the same concession about the much more complicated word “you.”
Reporter #1 finds the most interesting… can we even call them errors? Maybe? I mean, this seems likely to be incorrect, no matter how you spin it. But I suppose there is an explanation out there in the world that would make it acceptable. I’d just like to know the story!
Kacia sent this one. I know it’s wrong, of course, but: I’ve *had* new olives, and they’re gross. You want an olive that’s aged a little and has spent some time in some brine. So perhaps the author here was just acknowledging the fact that olives newly-arrived to a store for sale are, in fact, months old?
I honestly have no idea what purpose these quotes are supposed to serve. If they were there for emphasis (as incorrect as that is), they should be around the word ‘no’. Is pseudo-trash the disallowed commodity? Who knows!
Maybe the author is a hard-core environmentalist who believes that most of the material we consider refuse could actually be repurposed or otherwise have value, but acknowledges that it cannot, in fact, be recycled by this community’s recycling facilities?