I'm going to respond to you, because I think
you're crying out for help
(...and because I want to try to adhere to Wikipedia ettiquette and repair
No, I think it's more likely you're responding directly to me because
you don't want it to be known to the list that you said "fuckwit".
You don't sound remotely calm or considered.
I never said I did. But then, you don't either.
I think you ought to re-read this post to me, and
think about it.
No thanks. I don't feel like taking a trans-atlantic flight just to
read a post out to you.
It's no surprise that you decide to focus on the
fact that I submit "teh" as
"the" without correcting it; it strikes me you do it to feel better about
Right. You just keep telling yourself that.
That is an example of troll behaviour. If you were
interested in debating
properly you wouldn't pump out such childish shit. I'm at fault for
responding to it similarly, out of annoyance.
I have read what I've sent. I have made errors. I
have conceded, apologised,
and corrected myself.
There is nothing wrong with making errors. However, when you assert,
as you do, that your orthography is the only "correct" spelling, it
deserves special notice when you make mistakes. This has been noted by
others on this list.
You have simply had an air of a superiority complex
right from the first
And you haven't?
The things you've just ranted about "American
English is ugly" - where did
say that? I didn't.
"...Americanised" - I made a case for it, not refuted.
"..spell better.." - Wrong again, I never said or suggested that, more of
your consistent bollocks.
I like how you spew and spew and spew, and then later claim it's me
who is emitting consistant bollocks. You said a number of times that
Americans are bad at spelling and similar things. Or at least someone
using your e-mail address did.
...and no, (to add to the list of things I also never
said) I didn't say
it's not OK for you to call me xyz, several others said that.
Don't remember that.
should know better.
I like how you call me an impulsive, petulant, self-important twat,
and then lecture me on what I should know better than to do.
Jimbo Wales has called you a troll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_Wales
Despite the fact that nobody so far besides yourself seems to agree
with the idea of separate Wikipedias, you continue to make it sound as
if there is some sort of oppressed minority here.
I'm not impulsive in calling you an impulsive,
twat. I've thought about it; I've read your crap; and you are definitely all
of those things, and you're proving it now, and I'd be happy to scibble it
all over your face.
And you're none of those things? You like to call me a troll, yet
somehow you're not one, even though in this thread alone more people
have called you a troll than have called me a troll in the past month.
You're regularly being impulsive with your
hurried replies making
accusations you haven't checked the facts of, and it shows in your frantic
style of writing; you're being petulant because of your frantic desperation
to prove yourself right and "win", in addition to your general unreasoned,
un-backed-up hostility right from the kick off; you're self-importance shows
in the way you constantly write and mock as though you believe you are an
ultimate authority, e.g.: "When Mark Wiliamson calls you a troll, you must
be one, I think" - I bet you wrote the book on self-importance; it all adds
up to being a twat, and your comebacks are hopeless.
As far as "nettiquette" goes, there's one rule I know: "Don't say
you're not prepared to say to someone's face." I doubt very much you and or
chums have a cock and balls between you, except your boyfriend's.
Well, assuming you didn't read my userpage, that was a cheap shot, and
I think it's a good thing I'm forwarding this to the list. Remember
that private e-mails don't always remain private.
And I am prepared to say all of that to your face, although perhaps
not scribble it on you because that is something that only people who
are, well, barking mad would do.
Of course, it's generally bad netiquette to forward private e-mails to
a public mailinglist, however people seem to accept it if the author
of the original e-mail has acted abusive.
You did not confide in me, so I'm not breaking some sort of sworn
confidence; I did not guarantee you I wouldn't forward your message;
in addition you have said some pretty abusive things here.
I am not the only person who feels dissatisfied with
the Americanisation of
Wikipedia. Someone else proposed this, I merely support it.
And who might that be? As far as I can tell, the first person in this
thread is you, who sent the message "Wikipedia Scot's English?
Wikipedia Simple English? I want Wikipedia English English!!".
Aubergine, as you must know, unless you're a
complete fuckwit, is merely an
example of one of the kinds of unintelligibility and linguistic preference
problems. There are Wiki pages already listing unintellibilities between the
two dialects, which are nowhere near completed; they will get much longer.
Yes, but as I and many others have said, they are small enough that
mutual intelligibility is USUALLY not a problem. If it were, neither
of us would be capable of having this, well, whatever it is.
The fact that we are having a heated row about this is
no evidence of
intelligibility; it may actually turn out to be evidence of the opposite. Do
you actually know what evidence is?
The instance I gave my encounter with an American over "What's Up"
illustrates how identical vocab, grammar, and syntax does not equal
identical semantics, it can be unintelligible.
Do you remember what you responded with? I doubt it - too busy patting
yourself on the back for your "witty" Trollish quips.
Whatever. "Can be unintelligible" is very different from "is usually
The idea that American-English is an offshoot of
English is actually a
I am stating that the name "English" has already been used (like a domain
name), and I'm talking about the written word as standardised in England, so
arguing the toss over dialects inside England, and in people's living rooms
is a red herring. You can argue that the term "English" be reappointed to
name a genus of dialects, but I'm arguing that that particular name applies
most aptly to the dialect that has developed in the same geographical place,
among the same ethnolinguistic group where it autochthonously evolved from
Anglo-Saxon into what we know today.
That particular debate is over what names apply to what. Americans call what
we speak "British English", but if you go to the wiki article, you'll see
that that term is not accepted in Britain or England; people feel, and in my
view, rightly, that the prefix is unwarranted. It's a result of having a
country made up of countries.
I've never said my English is better than yours; I've said that too much of
the stuff called English in Wikipedia is not recognisable English in England
and plenty of other places.
Have you read any of your e-mails? Perhaps you're not the real author of them?
The main part of what pisses me (and others) off, is
the fact that most of
the English is American, and non-English speakers are going to read articles
written in American, and think that that is the standard form. I want them
to know that it isn't; that it's the standard form for a dialect of English
called American English - that's what the OED calls it, so should Wikipedia,
in the name of accuracy, accessibility, inclusivity and fairness.
There is no internationally-recognised "standard English". There are
two varieties which are both used by millions of people. You, and
anybody else who edits Wikipedia, are welcome to use either.
Finally, no, I'm calling you a bully and an
Your silly absolutist playground statements like "nobody agrees with you
about xyz" are fluent trollish; plenty of people here are intelligent enough
to pick and choose for themselves what they do and don't agree with, without
your rather de-legitimised recommendations.
You can't even respond positively to any
constructive comments, you have to
run for the cover of your "innernet buddies".
How anyone as ridiculous as you can call me anything