Cristy Fermin is really an error: the person and the grammar

Finally, the news that all humans have been waiting for. I welcome the news from pinoycelebritybuzz.com about Cristy's suspension. I just hate the wrong grammar.

Here's part of the blog:

"She is suspended as host from ABS-CBN’s “The Buzz” and as anchorperson from DZMM’s “Showbiz Mismo” until December 31, 2008.

ABS-CBN also said that Cristy Fermin violates the company’s high standard of professionalism and integrity in journalism which is detrimental not only to her name and credibility but also that of “The Buzz” and ABS-CBN."

1. You don't host FROM a particular show, you are host OF a show. So, Cristy Fermin is suspended as host of ABS-CBN's "The Buzz" and as anchorperson OF DZMM's etc etc.

2. That is a wicked, dangling dependent clause you got in there. What you are saying is that the integrity in journalism is detrimental to Cristy and the TV station. How so? Just divide the confusing statement into two:

ABS-CBN also said that Cristy Fermin violates the company’s high standard of professionalism and integrity in journalism. Such a violation is detrimental not only to her name and credibility but also that of “The Buzz” and ABS-CBN.

And while we are at it, I have two objections:

a. I object to the insinuation that Cristy Fermin had credibility prior to the violation.

b. I object to the term of the suspension. Why not extend her suspension until December 31, 2220.

Nadia's grammar is beyond forgiveness

Nadia Montenegro in PEP

"I have to remind Cristy Fermin, you are convicted for libel. You have no credibility no more. I do not know but I have to say this and I have to fight for what I believe in."

I will not even mention how dirty you look because of this mud-slinging. One of these days, Gretchen Barreto might experience an epiphany and will forgive you. Your grammar, girl, is beyond forgiving.

Sentence 1: I have to remind Cristy Fermin, you are convicted for libel. Dahling, you don't shift subjects in the middle of a sentence. Second, the conviction happened in the past, so it should be were, not are. Third, the correct proposition is convicted OF libel.

So, why not say, "I have to remind Cristy Fermin that she was convicted of libel.

Sentence 2: You have no credibility no more.

Let us assume that Cristy HAD credibility (which I seriously doubt), then avoid the double negative. "You don't have credibility anymore."

Sentence 3: I do not know but I have to say this and I have to fight for what I believe in."

Honestly, you've lost me. Girl, what the heck are you talking about?

Better get your act together, grammar or otherwise.