The implication is that we can't have both spellings because most Americans
would have "trouble" comprehending words spelled with -re. Thus we lower
the bar to accommodate rather then expect the population to rise up. Not
just in spelling, but other things too.
If you were able to comprehend my post, which obviously you didn't, I was
asking why we can't have both? Why does it have to be one or the other? We
have it both ways in some instance, why not others?
Apparently from your response, you must have had the bar lowered my times
for you.
It seems Jason understood the point being made. Why didn't you?
Metric will definitely help not only with increased exports but with a
reduction in redundancy of parts. We will have one set of fasteners, one
set of tools, one set of steel shapes and sizes, etc.
But I doubt it will happen because basically the working poor aren't
complaining. They are the ones who will stand the most to gain from
metrication. But they seem to be happy in their poverty.
As for "retarded" and "backwards", I just look to New Orleans and Houston as
to how "organized" the evacuations were as an example of how we do things.
Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Chernack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, 2005-09-24 09:51
Subject: [USMA:34621] Re: spelling
Lowering the bar? Are you implying that because we spell "er" rather "re"
we are somehow lower than those who spell the other way? So you are
saying
that one way of spelling is better than the other rather than just
different? You really have no clue about the English language or its
evolution. How arrogant on your part! I guess it fits with your
philosophy
that since the U.S. is not predominantly metric by this point that we are
somehow "retarded" vs. the rest of the world. Get off it already. From
your email address, it looks like you are living in the very place that
you
seem to so despise. If this is the case, you are free to move somewhere
else.
I advocate metric because I think it is the right thing for the U.S. My
motivation is to help the place I call home become stronger and more
economically viable. It is in my best interest and the interest of those
around me to do so. From my impression of others on this list, it seems
others feel the same way regardless of our methodologies. All I have ever
seen come from you is vitriol, hate and nothing constructive.
So tell us. Do you really feel metrication will help the U.S. and its
economic viability or do you see it as a "pipe dream" that will never
happen
and just confirm your preconceived notion of how "backwards" we are
compared
to the rest of the "civilized" world?
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf
Of Daniel
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 8:54 AM
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:34619] Re: spelling
The use of -er in US spelling is not universal. I often see place names
with the spelling centre instead of center and theatre instead of
theater.
Places using the spelling centre tend to be more ritzy and chic and
theatre
tends to refer to live productions, whereas theater is used more with
movies.
So why can't we have both spellings in the US? We need to quit trying to
lower the bar,
Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stan Jakuba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, 2005-09-24 08:10
Subject: [USMA:34618] Re: spelling
> Concerning the unique feature of the English language - spelling, the
> re/er
> issue will apparently never die. Perhaps it will help to move this
> forum
> to
> other topics if I attach a treatise I wrote to end this discussion with
a
> certain American committee.
> Stan Jakuba
> http://metric1.net/sijakub
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 2005-09-23
