Personally i dont really give a flying shit what kind of language fettish you have Fresh. The fact is, you are a pompous asshole. Why is it that even still today, the "englanders" feel like they need to act superior to Americans. Your puny little island means squat in the grand scheme of things, so i dont really care. In fact, the only people who really give a shit about "englanders" and your pompous attitudes are you yourselves. You people have a real talent at shoveling over the insults until you need us to save your asses. Next time we should let Germany march right into London, that way maybe they could breed you pricks out of existance for good.

Heh, look who''s incapable of talking rationally.

quote:

---

You seem to have taken this rather personally. I dont wish to aggravate you, merely to have a rational debate.

---

I seem to have taken this personally? The only things that slightly aggravated me were your broad insulting generalizations and the arrogant way your presented your arguemnet. You aggravated me even more by your low personal attacks, denial of blatent ethnocentrism and insulting implications. I did not make a single personal attack in my last post. BTW, although I am not incapable of making such an elegant post, I am not the anonymous poster.

quote:

---

Original post by Fresh
My angst is with the way certain Americans view this.

---

What do you care what ''clinically stupid'' people think o anyways?

quote:

---

Ok, read that line again: "The language mutated because it was being taught to very many uneducated people all from different backgrounds at the same time." There were very many uneducated people being taught, not uneducated teachers. During the early years of the country''s history (as it pertains at least to western eyes), there was hardly the infrastructure to teach the vast number of immigrants. They taught each other; incorrect habits were learnt hard and fast. A lifetime''s worth of education cannot remove these habits. They have gone from being bad to becoming the norm. This is fine - this is latter day etymology.

---

What the hell is your fetish with calling them uneducated? Why do you insist that they (these people that lived 300+ years ago)were ''wrong''? Believe it or not, the way we speak has evolved very similarily, with very minor differences. More likely, any differences have more to do with the differant cultures of the colonializers over the education. Once again, I implore you to read stuff written back then (in both countries) and compare it to today.

You seem to believe that becuase english as we know it today originated closer to where you live, that somehow makes evolutions in the language that happen nearer you are ''more correct''.

quote:

---

However, there are people who claim that the English are still wrong when it comes to the word ''maths''. You yourself said:

I have never head the word ''maths'' spoken aloud, and never seen it until I frequented these forums. Neither, I assume, have many other Americans. I am still appalled by it''s ussage.

This is hypocrisy to the nth degree. You give a livid reply to my diatribe berating my "ethnocentric" teaching of language, and the ideas this has instilled in me, and then in one statement give a sweeping opinion. I explained historically to Squeejee, who asked why we say certain words the way we do, but your argument seems to be personal, or at least the lack of rationality would indicate this to be the case.

---

What the fuck are you talking about? Not only did I not give an opinion in the above, I wasn''t being hypocritical at all nor attacking you. I don''t understand how you could have gotten any of that out of the above.
My background, and that of most americans, is that we have never heard the word ''maths'' outloud. Is that hypocritical? No, it''s a fact. I had not seen the word until sometime last year on these forums. Is that hypocritical? I am still appalled by it''s usage. Is that hypocritical? No, neither is it ethnocentric. I am just not yet comfortable with its usage, what the hell is wrong with that? You need to settle down.
And Squeejee actually asked if you were calling him stupid.

I may have misunderstood a small part of your first reply. Rational debate is fine, but don''t critize me for being ''personal'', when in fact I was not. And if you are going to call me things like ''irrational'', please back it up with reasons.


Mike

jeez, you guys are soooo serious ...... did anyone notice the emoticon "" at the end of the math/s thing? do you know what it means? whether you do or not lighten up :D

alistair

btw, the reason folks here think americans are stupid is the same reason americans think the english are stupid - because they''re different

i think you should do calculus if you never use it so what, but if you didn''t learn it & needed it you''d be stuffed - learn as much as you can while you have time & its cheap!!!

quote:

---

Heh, look who''s incapable of talking rationally.

---

Just ignore the cowards.

I found your post somewhat irritating too Fresh. What if I claimed that most Englanders spoke with a lisp and could not pronounce any word correctly no matter how they spelled it...
In America we say ''math'', but I perfectly understand why one would say ''maths''. I live near Detroit, so I have to hear Canadian pronunciations of words all the time - drives me crazy. It''s "eh-bout" not "a-boat"!!! But I don''t think they''re stupid because they say it differently, nor because they feel we''re the ones saying it wrong.

What I find appalling is that people actually care enough to get pissed about it.

...
Do they use the term OK in England? Do you know where/how it originated?


PS ehehe maths shows up as misspelled in Word Does it in the British version?

And of course he''s pompous, he''s British You expect an American to not be rude?


Magmai Kai Holmlor
- The disgruntled & disillusioned

Pompous or not, my first post was in jest, but Vetinari did give a vitriolic reply. Look at that first post of mine again - it was made in good humour, with anecdotes such as {blatant generalisation}. I wasn''t actually labelling you all as clinically stupid, only playing with a widely held stereotype.

And if you''re predisposed to think I''m pompous, I''ll be predisposed to think you''re stupid. I know this is not really the case. I am not really pompous, and you do not appear to be stupid. But understand at least that first post was not serious, and was never intended to be. It''s only when it strikes a chord in somebody, they see past the humour (which concedingly might not be apparent to Americans ) and take the content out of context.

Vetinari, I''m not going to bother picking holes in what you''ve said this time, because you''ve blown something small way out of proportion. I advise we both back down.

r.

"The mere thought hadn''t even begun to speculate about the slightest possibility of traversing the eternal wasteland that is my mind..."

I get it, you''re one of those that can dish shit out, but can''t back it up, take it yourself, or admit you may have said something wrong. As soon as some heat comes back, all of a sudden you want to ''back off''.

You critize me for ''blowing something small way out of proportion'', when you wrote a few hundred word arrogant flame for someone basically asking why you say the word ''maths'' (Whether or not you intended it to be an arrogant flame or not, I am not the only one that inturrpreted it that way.) In the same breadth that you said you didn''t want me to be aggravated and wanted ''rationality'', you called me hypocritical and irrational, and continued to make broad (and untrue, regardless of your ''experiences'') generalizations about all Americans.

I have no predisposion to think people from the UK are ''pompous''; whether you are or are not pompous really is irrelevant, and I will never know if you are or not. It is relevant that you came off as pompous.

I am really curious as to how I was being hypocritical, and wish you could tell me where I was. And I challenge you to find one indicition of ''vitriolicness'' in my first reply. While you''re at it let me know how I was being irrational in anything I said.

This is somewhat personal now, but don''t you dare try to tell me (again) that it was I that made it so. You can back off if you want, but it will leave much unclear to me and only furthur concrete my suspicions about you. The only reason I responded to your first post, in fact, is becuase you blew something so petty into a flame while coming off as an arrogant know-it-all. I think you need to think a little more about what you are saying before you say it.


Mike

STOP THIS THING ABOUT MATH/MATHS!!!

IT IS UTTERLY POINTLESS AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POST TOPIC. I SAID IT AS A BIT OF LIGHT HEARTED HUMOUR, BUT YOU''RE ALL TOO UPTIGHT TO UNDERSTAND.

i think you should take calculus

alistair

It wasn't a flame, and you've obviously been offended. I can't do anything about the latter. I dont care [to this degree] about the subject matter, only that you persist in continuing this childlike behaviour. As for letting you know how hypocritical, irrational and vitriolic your reply was, see my previous posts - there are annotated examples.

Admittedly my first post was rather irrational, but it wasn't hypocritical and certainly wasn't vitriolic - as were your replies (and then successively mine). I could equally say you're one of 'those people' who are incapable of taking the moral high ground or remaining magnanimous. What remains the fact is, that a harmless post giving a rather cynical, if possible explanation to alistair's question, offended you, or you wouldn't have come back so sharply.

If it pleases you to label me as one of those who can dish shit out, but can't back it up, suit yourself. Many perhaps will agree. There are those who wont. You still persisted in replying to everything I said, always more profane than how I said it. If it appears cowardlike to back off now, then fine. But like everybody else, I think this has gone on long enough. I think you need to see past harmless stereotypes which hit home, before lashing out an aggresive response. Have your last word.

r.

"The mere thought hadn't even begun to speculate about the slightest possibility of traversing the eternal wasteland that is my mind..."

Edited by - Fresh on February 18, 2001 4:00:13 PM

Edited by - Fresh on February 18, 2001 4:03:24 PM

Why do you insist that I was offended by your first post and replied vitriolistically? I have now reread my first reply 15+ times, and the closest I can find no vitriolisticness whatsoever. It was then your first reply that started the name calling. How you can dispute blatent facts (go back and read them) is beyond me.

Very little anger lies in the fact that you lowered this to childish name calling and brought it away from any rationality. Any anger lies more in confusion as to where you are coming from, you accusing me of things that did in fact not happen, and frustrations from the limitations that internet message board impose on communications.

As for "I could equally say you're one of 'those people' who are incapable of taking the moral high ground"; yes I generrally do not take the 'moral high ground', I am not really sure what you mean by 'remaining magnanimous'.

I still am curious as to how my first reply could have been viewed as vitriolic (which my dictionary defines as 'bitterly abusive') or how being uncomfortable with the word 'maths' could be hypocritical? I have read and reread, but I have no clue where you are coming from. Any confusion you can clear up would be appreciated.

And alistar - sorry to burst your bubble but this has nothing to do with anything you said (unless you were the original AP)


Mike


Edited by - Vetinari on February 18, 2001 5:01:34 PM