For me when it comes to language, "The original the better".
Why change such a beautiful language?
In response to a similar assertion you made earlier, I posted a page from Beowulf, which presumably you did not recognize since you failed to respond.
For me when it comes to language, "The original the better".
Why change such a beautiful language?
this is an American site, so technically all your spellings are wrong.
No offence to any one but to me British English is more proper than American English. American English looks "lazy" (example: Jewellery--->Jewelry).
Ok.
Another question, what is the difference between Australian and British English then? They "look" the same to me.
Technically my spellings are right too.
Besides, why should it matter if it is an American site?
Why do you assume that I am evil?It's not laziness, it's efficiency. The printing industry in the U.S. saved $7.3 billion dollars of ink in the last year alone* by not printing extraneous "u"s in words like color and labor. By advocating inefficient spelling you are advocating total economic collapse, and that is just plain evil. And you don't want to be evil, do you? Well, do you?
Because you come here and tell everyone that they need to change the American English to completely different spellings. That's what makes it matter. You want to arbitrarily change a language, and you haven't provided one good reason to do so.
BTW, this is an American site, so technically all your spellings are wrong.
Besides, why should it matter if it is an American site?
I think you would agree that it's home may be there, but it's heart is World-wide.
but it's heart is World-wide.
And British English is more accepted worldwide it seems to me.
Wow. You just never give up. I thought you agreed with Skunk to stop trying to shove your beloved British English down everyone's throats?
Ok, that is fine now.You shave your whole body below you neck and Americans shave a few letters here and there from British English.
Let American English and British English go there separate ways.
Speaking of spelling...
Sorry, I couldn't resist.![]()
Nice try at avoiding evil though.
On the other hand, one of the key bodies in the UK printing industry – British Union of Lithographic Liquid Providers (and Other Official People) – reports that the extra jobs and revenue created by the supply of all that extra ink has contributed the equivalent of $7.4 billion to the British economy over the past twelve months alone.It's not laziness, it's efficiency. The printing industry in the U.S. saved $7.3 billion dollars of ink in the last year alone* by not printing extraneous "u"s in words like color and labor. By advocating inefficient spelling you are advocating total economic collapse, and that is just plain evil. And you don't want to be evil, do you? Well, do you?
I caught that one but let it pass ...
So, I think you have to concede we're right in this instance – after all, you can't argue with these BULLPOOP figures.
Why are you still saying that I am evil?
Are you saying that British English and the British people are evil as well?![]()
You're not so great at getting tongue-in-cheek humo(u)r, are you?
1. Why did you post in old thread like this just to nitpick me?if it bothers you that much then you shouldn't get online.