His conclusion was based on ‘a limit to how much information I’m comfortable reading online’. He additionally noticed that electronically delivered magazine pages rarely contained more than 100 words which seemed to concede the uncongeniality of reading from a screen. His assessment was that electronic media excelled in the presentation of static and moving images, rather than text. Now I happen to agree unreservedly with this forthright analysis.

Printed products have overwhelming advantages over electronic media that ought to be trumpeted from the rooftops. They do not demand, for access, special equipment or electrical power or extraneous services (eg telephony). They are instantly referable, relatively inexpensive, portable, editorially disciplined, and convenient to use. Such benefits should be indelibly incorporated in the portfolios of print salespeople and conveyed to customers at every opportunity.

Irrespective of the method of delivering text, the words need to be worth reading. Too much contemporary language is corrupted and debased by using words for effect, rather than meaning. One observes this cock-eyed emphasis in management speak, in psychobabble, in political piffle, in bureaucratic balderdash, and much else.

Trendiness in language radiates pretentiousness, conceals essence, and generally is to be condemned. Even the guardians of the young resort to drivel and nonsense on occasion; I noted the other day that an educationalist was blathering on about ‘student-centric solutions’. Fortunately space has run out, otherwise I could have expounded at length on the abuse of the word ‘solution’. It is uttered for effect nowadays, instead of for sense.