I don't think I did. So here's Google's next best offer: a piece of Chunky bar, to give you strength for what's to follow.
Take a deep breath before you read the paragraphs below. They're from a real email, sent yesterday to someone I know. If they make you feel ill, remember the poor sods to whom they were sent - they had to make sense of them and find some way of replying. They weren't allowed to shout, scream or in any way abuse the sender. All I've changed is the names. In case you're wondering, this isn't technical language that made sense to the recipients, it's gibberish.
On chunky : the principle is not compromised at all, it is the principle of chunky not the principle of “giganagarous” (very very very large)… the trick is to be chunky at the right level of granularity for re-use/multi usage, business need and future proofing (chunks at the object level not at the entire data set size)… it is not about breaking the architecture with giant messages for the sake of it. In short, we simply need to make sure that the chunks are the right sized chunks…
D; please review B’s mail and give me your view of the right way forward and how the data team can support the project to strategic and right sized immediate success.
B, review with the data and integration team the chunk sizes and ideally we can define a basic holistic of chunky granularity or similar guideline to help people get the granularity right going forward. / or simply the data team can propose the chunks to SIG…
Is this the first time 'holistic' has been used as a noun? A small point amongst such horrors, but it's surely a development that's worth noting and fighting vigorously.
It's stuff like this that makes the job of a writer feel like a noble calling.