So why didn't you bother to reply to either of my specific points on the
history and nature of newsgroups?
...
it is extremely funny to me, coming from a british background in
education, to be corrected by an american, whose constant bastardizing
of the english language sets off many heated debates around the world.
americans have changed spelling and pronunciations (note...not
pronounciations...as is so the american way) that really should not be
changed. for eg. the coveted "our" suffix (the plural of which is
"suffices" and not "suffixes") that make the language beautiful has
been changed to "or" in many words and conveniently left as is in
some. the "r" in "hour, for e.g., was never meant to be pronounced,
hence the spelling. listen to any well bred person in any english
speaking country other than america.
I am English, but live in California. The fact that you seem to think
I'm American is a nice demonstration of the quality of my American
dialect writing.
I use American spelling in contexts where American is the more
conventional dialect. That includes newsgroups where the majority of
readers are likely to be more familiar with American, business writing
within US-based corporations, academic papers submitted to American
publications, and e-mail to my American friends.
I switch my spell checker over to English spellings when I'm writing to
my mother. She can read American, but is more familiar with English. The
point is that, because my objective is to communicate, I try to make my
writing as readable as possible for my audience.
i CAN spell and am impeccable with my grammar when i need to be. and
this is not that place. what seemed funny to my previous critiques
(which brings to mind the bastardized "check" as opposed to "cheque",
a whole "nuther" word), was still me not caring about the
correctedness of my typing text online. i was not trying to be
grammatically correct. that was the whole point. they just didnt get
it. i dont care.
I know you don't care.
wise men walk all the way around a tree to end up right back at the
beginning, much the wiser. Miles Davis once said, learn all u can
about ur instrument. everything there is to know about it. then forget
everything u learnt.
at that point, u need to prove no more. feel.
who cares about if i use shorthand. they can all FEEL what im saying.
this...is true understanding.
No, I feel the meaning when I look at conventional English or American
writing. To read what you call "shorthand" I have to slow down and sound
out individual letters and words, just the way I did when I was learning
to read. Even then, there is often some guesswork involved.
not the forum for this topic, i apologize.
thanks for listening Patricia.
So how about responding to what I wrote?[
Patricia
so my dear friends. i am in a gang war facing my impending doom at the
hands of the almighty verbose intellectuals.
patricia, i will get back to u on the subject that is really the focus
of ur reply. did not mean to diss u. promise.
i just keep getting sidetracked with the mob's sticks and stones.
first, i never assumed that YOU were american. as a matter of FACT, i
suspected ur difference, though this may not please ur affinity toward
cultural merging when it comes to communication through language. no
insult intended.
if ur mom decided to cut u off because u didnt write to her in
british, u would begin to understand the reason for my continued
debate on the extremety of the replies.
my rebuttals have to do with the SERIOUSNESS in which the mob is
handling a very trivial issue that is, in my not so humble opinion,
not nearly as extreme as our good friend Andrew Thompson poked me with
and a good deal substantive enough for any scientist to partake. since
when do scientists not talk to each other in the lab in a relaxed
manner? i do. u should hear us in TRINIDAD. u wont understand a thing
and its STILL english. lol.
my point is that this, MY, case is way too grey to warrant all the
hate mail thats received on this particular topic.
to begin answering ur questions Patricia, electronic communication
began with the meagerest of codes. for eg. morse code, then telex etc.
one can separate the "usenet" groups from the historical connection as
much as he wants but its not.
would u impeach a president because he lied about running a traffic
light? maybe in THIS country but the impeachment law was not written
in that spirit. nor is the need for exactedness in scientific
communication where this thread is concerned. save the accuracy for
the subject itself if u need to, i say.
i see code written here with descriptions to its problem that is
SOOOOO confusing due to the lack of the understanding of conciseness,
punctuation and general grammer that its hard to believe they're
picking on lil old ME.
i will continue anwering ur questions a little later.
gotta get some more usenet help
