At 08:18 PM 7/6/2004, Darcy James Argue wrote: >Not standards -- conventions. Just because someone decides to break a >convention doesn't make them wrong. Or ignorant. >[...] >No. It's the conventional way, sure. No argument there. But there is >no objective "correct" way. There are rational reasons (and Mark has >outlined some of them) why someone might choose to defy this >convention. That doesn't necessarily make them ignorant or stupid or >uncooth.
I'd like to point out, again, that no one in this discussion has called anyone else ignorant, stupid, or uncouth. I'd also like to point out that being incorrect does not make someone ignorant, stupid, or uncouth.
<devil's advocate>Is "uncouth" merely the "conventional" way of spelling that word? Am I not allowed to say that spelling it "uncooth" is incorrect, because that would imply that there are objective standards for spelling? </devil's advocate>
Aaron.
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
