Dan Douglass’ attempts to evoke the negative connotations of “big” in his attack on Barclays (Letters, MW May 4) made painful reading. There’s a valid point here, but a couple of sentences would have sufficed. Instead, he throws in everything from “big banana” to Ronnie Biggs. The result is anything but the verbal tour de force intended. Square pegs, round holes – no problem!
Having worn through the bottom of the barrel, Douglass resorts to “Big Horn”. Apparently “historians seem to have dropped the ‘little’ as inadequate when describing the colossal error of military judgement that led to Custer’s last stand’. Is somebody supposed to be impressed by this?
Douglass huffs and puffs, but misses all the best lines. Want to show off with words? First, learn how to write.
Signum Marketing Communications