Martha should be outraged!

Outraged that two errors would appear in advertisements in her fine, fine publication, Martha Stewart Living.  Typos in publications are relatively common; I can usually find one or two in any publication.  Living is an exception, though.  I'm hard-pressed to find a typo or grammatical error in a whole year of issues.  I like to think that it's because Martha is so detail oriented.

Apparently, though, if I want errors in Martha's publication, I need to look in the less expensive advertising in the very back.

First up, baths for sale:

Yes, folks, for just under ten bucks, you can purchase a bath from a magazine ad.  Martha herself takes these ten-dollar baths, and she loves them.  She recommends the FREE* monogramming, too.  Only Martha could find a way to monogram an action such as bathing.

I'm fairly certain that these ads are priced based on dimensions, not word count, and I don't know about you, but I see quite a bit of empty space in this ad for one additional word of clarification.

And what's up with all the asterisks?  Really?  Is the deal so shady that everything needs legal fine print?

Disturbed by the lack of proofreading or copywriting skill, I turned the page to find this beauty (and please excuse the fuzzy pictures; I'm a grammarian, not a photographer):

I know you don't see a problem with this ad; the photo is too out of focus to read it.  The issue is in the second paragraph, and it's one that most people would overlook, anyhow:

That last line ends with, "for those that just love to cook."

Apparently GelPro mats are designed for non-humans that love to cook.  If they were talking about people with an affinity for cooking, they surely would have used who instead of that.  And I don't know if you've priced out GelPro mats, but I have (because I do love to cook, and my kitchen floor is tile), and I'm guessing that my dog can't afford one.

She's a lousy cook, anyhow.