Red Dwarf has a big US following so, as Americans tend to get more confused with British spellings than Brits do with American spellings*, I can see why a publisher for a book that's going to sell copies both sides of the Atlantic would pick the US spellings of words that are likely to cause confusion. I believe I raised this point about international audiences before.
As to the introductions for the classical novels that you mentioned, well, when were the intros actually written? Were they penned in 1990 or was that the year of the reprints in your possession? Also, you might want to take into account the age of the writers and the reluctance of book editors to correct introductions and forwards written by people in academia, who aren't above throwing fits if someone dares tamper with their work. And, of course, my point about international audiences still stands.
Alternatively, it could be that the academics you mentioned wrote those forwards for US-specific editions of those texts and that their contributions were reproduced verbatim in other versions. Or, that because they often write copy that will be published in the US, they err on the side of caution and always use the "-ize" form.
I'm sure it will seem to you that I'm bending over backwards to explain why "-ize" appears at all in any media here in the UK but, the fact that it doesn't appear at all in newspapers, and rarely in magazines (both of which are consumed at a greater rate than books), suggest that my theory as to why the "-ize" spelling appears at all in books might well hold some water.
I'll tell you one thing for free though: I spoke to two people I know who both teach English over here, to pupils aged 11-18, and they both agreed that "-ize" is an Americanism that they would correct to "-ise" without hesistation.
(*For proof of this, just check out how often someone who uses the word "spelt" here on Slashdot is totally dismissed by an American reader who offers the word "spelled" as being correct.)
So those 0.99 AUD downloads are equivalent to getting 0.73 USD downloads from the US iTunes music store. Not bad at all.
The 0.99 xxx artificial price point is good news for Aussies, but I can't help but think Brits (and, to a lesser extent, continental Europeans) are going to get shafted when similar stores appear for us - 0.99 GBP is 1.62 USD (and 0.99 EUR = 1.22 USD).
You just can't admit to getting your ass handed to you, can you? You wanted a definition of the ineligible receiver downfield rule because, if your arrogance, you didn't think I'd be able to provide one. Well that joke sure backfired, didn't it?
Wannabe American? Hardly. An appreciation for sports regardless of from where they spring is a little different from wanting to change my nationality.
No, I'm not suggesting that OUP or Harper produce unacceptable copy (if indeed they do favour "-ize") or that he main heading in almost every major dictionary in the UK is flawed.
The only thing that I am suggesting is that "-ise" is what's used almost universally throughout the British media, and "-ize" is almost universally regarded as an Americanisation (no pun intended). If you can find me one popular British publication that favours "-ize" over "-ise" or even one individual who hails from these shores who prefers the "-ize" form then I'd be amazed.
I'll say it for the third time: "-ize" may be acceptable in theory but in practice it is not.
Well, if a WR (or back) runs out of bounds and is the first player to touch the football on a downfield pass then he's an ineligible receiver and has just committed a foul.
Or, if he's bumped out of bounds by a defender and does not immediately make his way back onto the field of play as soon as possible then he's also ineligible if he touches the thrown pass before anyone else.
Alternatively, if he's a down lineman (center, guard, or offensive tackle) that's did not report in as an eligible receiver before the play, and he finds himself downfield when a forward pass is thrown, then he's also an ineligible receiver downfield, even if he is nowhere near the ball when it lands on the field or is caught.
You see, I do know that rule. I've played Madden on the Sega MegaDrive (Genesis), PC, Playstation, etc. I've also been an officially accredited journalist at WLAF/NFL Europe and American Bowl games with sideline and post-game locker-room access.
Want to ask me another NFL-related question? Perhaps you want to know how I feel about Steve McNair's chances of winning the league MVP award this year despite missing yesterday's game against Buffalo with a broken bone spur in his left ankle? Or how I feel about the Marc Bulger-Kurt Warner QB controversy?
Wonder what I think of Keyshawn Johnson being deactivated for the last six games of the season by Tampa Bay? Why Barry Sanders is my all-time favourite running back? Or how annoyed I am that I dropped Joe Horn from my fantasy team's starting lineup this week only to see him score 4TDs and pull out a cell phone too?
Think I'm making this up? Don't think I know anything about American football at all? Check out some of my NFL-related comments here, here and here. I may not be American but I bet I know more about the NFL than you'll ever do.
What do you want to test me on next? The infield fly rule? Go ahead little man, go ahead.
Firstly, as I pointed out elsewhere, football has laws, not rules. Go find the relevant reply I made elsewhere for enlightenment.
Secondly, yes I erred. That should have read "where you're from" as you pointed out. Mea culpa. That's what I get for staying up all night to watch the NFL late night game on TV.
Thirdly, I erred again. That should have read "which TV quiz has a conundrum round", but anyone who's British would have spotted the words "TV" "quiz" and "conundrum round" worked out what I was trying to say.
None of that changes the fact that the poster to whom I was replying is a lying bastard. He's about as British as Mount Rushmore and he knows it.
Lastly, I'd like to thank you for creating this new Slashdot account today just so that you could appear as a legitimate user replying to my post. (Your UID is 732930, just 23 less than the UID of the new account named "justchecking" I just created to see check my theory.)
I'd bet good money that you're the very person that I was replying to in the first place. Frankly, creating a new account just so that you could argue about my post without addressing its central issue (namely, that you're clearly not British, so pretending that you are to make your post seem more accurate is pathetic) is so sad that I don't have a superlative to describe it.
I hate to repeat myself, so I'll simply provide you with a short link to the reply I posted to someone else, who raised the same points you did.
I should point out, as I neglected to mention in that reply, that, by their very nature, books are more international than magazines, which in turn are more international than newspapers. By "international", I mean that a single print of a book may well be distributed in several countries, or use text that originated elsewhere but which hasn't been localised for its new audience. An example of this are the companion books produced my Microsoft et al to teach people how to use their software: even the British reprints of these books use American spellings ("color", "program", etc).
The same is also true, although to a lesser extent, with magazines. The Lancet is a British publication but I would imagine that a significant proportion of its readership are outside the UK, hence I'd expect to find that "-ize" is more likely to appear in that publication than in a popular daily newspaper, such as The Daily Telegraph or The Times.
You do realise (no pun intended) that, historically, "-ize" would have been the norm? So it's not entirely surprising (again, no pun intended) that if you looked in older novels that "-ize" would be used and that Collins Cobuild found more uses of "-ize" than "-ise" when scouring books.
Quoting from the article:
To look at two examples: in the Bank of English, `realise' occurs more than 11,000 times in British newspapers, `realize' 43 times. `Realise' occurs more than 5,500 times in British magazines; `realize' 444 times. But `realize' occurs more than 8,000 times in British books, `realise' about 1,500 times. Similarly for `harmonise'/`harmonize': `harmonise' occurs 160 times in British newspapers, `harmonize' not at all; `harmonise' occurs 205 times in British magazines, `harmonize' 5 times; but `harmonize' occurs 127 times in British books, `harmonise' 21 times.
Interestingly, "-ize" wasn't found in newspapers, which are written in the here and now, by journalists writing contemporary English. Magazines contained some use of "-ize" but used "-ise" over ten times as frequently - frankly, some of this can be put down to taking extracts of books, directly using copy from a sister publication in the US (eg, the British edition of Vogue using an article that originally appeared in American Vogue but not taking the time to correct the usage), etc. And, as for books, well, I believe that I covered those in my first paragraph.
Frankly, as someone who writes and edits for a living, I'm far more aware of the everyday usage of the English language and its idiosyncrasies than most people. My evidence isn't "the stack of newspapers and magazines on [my] desk", it's over a decade of publishing experience. I said it before and I'll say it again: "-ize" may well be acceptable in theory but in practice it is not.
Perhaps you'd care to peruse British media, including books, newspapers, magazines and websites, that will leave you in no doubt that "-ise" rather than "-ize" is the appropriate spelling in the UK.
Even the spelling checkers in software applications will replace "-ize" with "-ise" when set to UK or International English. "Realized" might be understood, but "realised" is the clearly the proper spelling in this context.
The OED link that you provide might well suggest that "-ize" is acceptable in theory but in practice it is not.
Well, I think I asked enough questions that weren't sports-related. I doubt he can even answer one of them without resorting to half an hour of googling.
If you're going to pretend to be British at least have the intelligence to disguise your North American upbringing.
"Welfare"? Nobody in the UK would call it welfare - that's such an Americanism it's unbelievable. As is "hawking". Try using more colloquial terms in future: eg, "benefits" instead of "welfare", "flogging" instead of "hawking". By the way, nobody uses the word "horrid" here either, apart from people living in a time warp.
"Realized"? Oh dear. Worse than using Americanisms is using American spellings. Outside North America the word is spelt "realised". Perhaps if you actually were from the UK you'd have learnt that.
If you truly are British care to tell us where your from? Want to name half a dozen British retailers you'd find on the typical high street? Care to explain the offside law? Or tell us what top job a Swede holds in England? Want to tell us what's bigger over here, Frasier, Friends, Scrubs, Sienfeld or Will and Grace? Want to tell me what the most famous football terrace in Britain's called? Or name the comics you grew up reading when you were a kid? Or which TV quiz conundrum round? Didn't think so.
Apart from all that, nice troll attempt. Now stop pretending to be something that you're not, you pathetic little man.
America didn't formally declare war with anyone at the start of World War II because America sat it out until it was forceably drawn into the war, first by Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour then by Hitler's declaration of war on America. So, both in the case of the war in the Pacific and the war in Europe, the US was an unwilling entrant.
To pretend that the US was an active participant in WWII from the start is ridiculous. WWII started on 3rd September 1939 and the attack on Pearl Harbour took place on 7th December 1941. Germany and its ally Italy simultaneously declared war on the US on 11th December 1941.
Please, before you quote history make sure your history is accurate.
Your comparison is laughable. World War II was started when Britain and France followed through on their treaty promise to Poland that they would intervene on its behalf if its sovereignty was directly threatened by Germany. Later on, after Hitler attacked it, the Soviet Union got involved and, later still, after Germany declared war on it as well, the US reluctantly joined the war in Europe too.
That's historical fact, and more than enough reason for Britain, France, the USSR, the US and their allies to be at war with Germany. And you're comparing that and the Nazi menace that engulfed Europe and North Africa killing over 20 million in the process to a peaceful nation that posed no threat whatsoever to the US or anyone else? That's beautiful.
What next? A comparison of Mother Theresa to Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot?
Re:Allende? You're backing Allende over Pincochet?
on
Saddam Hussein Arrested
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Presumably, you don't think that a CNN article that quotes the National Security Archive and the its executive director, a White House spokesman and a CIA official as well, and which also provides plenty of additional material and links, is "Marxist" or a "tired old myth"?
Now, go read it, go check Senate and NSA records yourself (they are public documents, after all), and then come back and tell me that's the coup wasn't CIA-led. I like to see you do that, because it would make liars of the NSA, the US Senate, the White House and the CIA itself.
QED.
Re:Allende? You're backing Allende over Pincochet?
on
Saddam Hussein Arrested
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Oh, so it's OK to back coups against democratically-elected governments if they are socialist?
Ah, I see now. It doesn't matter that the people of Chile elected Allende in free and fair elections. It only matters that his election wasn't desirable in Washington.
Do you even have a clue at what the word "socialist" means or even how many governments in Europe would be called socialist? Tony Blair's Labour Party may have reinvented itself, but it's essentially a socialist party. Do you see Blair ordering the murder of "comrades" and "peers"? Has the election of a Labour government ever been a justifiable reason for the US deciding to overthrow the British government?
Frankly, your post is full of lies and rubbish. "It was a bad choice between two terrible butchers", you say. Well, care to provide any evidence that Allende was a butcher?
Face facts: the CIA-led overthrow of a democratically-elected government and installation of a fascist dictator is not something in which the US should take pride. Even Colin Powell, when asked about it by a teenager on a MTV debate called it "unfortunate". If Mr Powell recognises it was wrong then why can't you?
As to your Bonus points question, let me ask you this: So, unless we do something about EVERY oppressive regime around the world at the same time, we shouldn't do anything?
No, but we shouldn't use the suffering of the Iraqi people as an excuse for settling old debts when our first excuse (WMDs) is exposed as being paper-thin.
If the US really is interested in human rights and alleviating the suffering of oppressed peoples then I can think of plenty of other places to move onto once its activities in Iraq have been concluded. Unfortunately, not too many of those other places are sitting on massive oil reserves.
Do you really believe that this war was about terrorism or WMDs? Or that American money and lives were spent so that Iraq could become a democracy? Are you really that naive?
(PS. Funny how Afghanistan has been all but forgotten, isn't it? In many ways, Afghanistan is worse now than it was pre-invasion: in many areas, schools that were previously opened are now closed, medical supplies are harder to come by and democracy certainly isn't on the horizon.
Didn't the US pledge to help rebuild that country too? Where are the billions being poured into that nation? Please point them out because I seem to have missed where they were itemised in the last US budget. Oh look, they don't exist...)
In spite of your assertions, the United States only provided Saddam with around 1% of his armaments during the period from 1973-1992.
Ignoring all other assistance (intelligence, etc) that's still 1 percent too much, isn't it? If not, what percentage would you consider to be OK before a nation becomes culpable for assisting that regime? 5 percent? 10? 20? It must be nice to be able to pretend that assisting an oppressive regime doesn't matter as long as you don't help them too much.
He was not placed in power by the U.S. and the U.K. and he helped turn back the Ayatollah and, ultimately, the spread of Soviet influence in the Middle East.
So you admit he was used by successive US administrations who were willing to turn a blind eye to his "extra-curricular" activities?
"...In the early 1970s, there were about 40 democracies in the world. By the middle of that decade, Portugal and Spain and Greece held free elections. Soon there were new democracies in Latin America, and free institutions were spreading in Korea, in Taiwan, and in East Asia..."
Just what does the fall of General Franco in Spain, etc have to do with your argument? Are you suggesting the conversion of Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc to democracies had something to do with US intervention? Was Franco killed by an exploding CIA cigar? I think not.
As for those "new democracies in Latin America", please, don't make me laugh. The US's record in Latin America is laughable, such as the 1973 CIA-backed coup in Chile that overthrew the democratically elected President President Salvador Allende in favour of a facist dictator, General Augusto Pinochet, who then proceeded to tortured and murdered tens of thousands. If that's the kind of example you want to bring up of how the US helps bring self-determination to the world then perhaps you want to think twice.
The facts are clear: when Saddam Hussein was murdering his people, the West stood by and watched, happy in the knowledge that he was being just as brutal towards Iranians as he was to his fellow Iraqis.
1. "Hundreds of thousands" might be a slight exaggeration.
2. All that went on with the blessing of the US, UK and the most of rest of the world.
Lest you forget, it was left to organisations like CND to point out that Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons on Kurdish settlements whilst countries like the US stuck their collective fingers in their ears, repeatedly chanted "la-la-la, I'm not listening", and pretended that the whole thing never happened.
You see, back then Saddam Hussein was a Good Guy (TM), because he was fighting those nasty Ayatollahs in Iran that gave the US such a bloody nose at the start of the 1980s. That he was a brutal dictator didn't matter then because he was the West's brutal dictator.
Perhaps you should switch off Fox News, pick up a history book, and ask yourself why it took the Gulf War and this latest War on Terrorism to bring his activities to your attention. For bonus points, find out where else this kind of oppression is going on and how long it's been ignored by the Western world.
Well, I'm glad that Saddam Hussein is no longer at large, but am I the only one who's a little bit disappointed that, in a news conference in which Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez (the US commander of coalition ground forces in Iraq), talked about "closure", there was no mention of weapons of mass destruction?
Sorry, but weren't WMDs what this invasion was supposedly about? Or has that all been forgotten?
What the fuck would you know? Ever been to the UK? No? Didn't think so.
For your information, dentistry here is free on the NHS, which means that British kids get a check up every six months and free correction. I'd bet good money that if you took 1,000 British kids and a 1,000 American kids at random then you'd find it was the group from the US that more uncorrected problems than those from the UK.
This "British people all have bad teeth" joke is so laughable, if only because the opposite is true.
Firstly, you started your previous reply with the one word statement "Bull", and you wonder why I got defensive?
Secondly, population density, land mass, etc are only part of the equation. Yes, a country with a low population density will tend to have a high miles of road per capita figure as will one with a large land area but other factors will play a part.
For example, cities within the UK tend to have far more miles of road within a given area than their counterparts on the continent, in the US and elsewhere. And whilst the highways figure that you quote may count just the UK's motorways, the UK's road network is criss-crossed with A roads and B roads that far outnumber those designated as motorways. If you want to see what I mean have a look at multimap.com/ and zoom in a few levels.
And, by the way, I do find it funny that you manage to start and end your posts with insults then accuse me of "just rambling" and "being annoyed".
As I pointed out elsewhere, the evidence that the UK has more miles of road per capita than anywhere else can be found in a Department of Transport consultation paper. Unfortunately, they've moved things around on their website so the link that I did have to the relevant paper no longer works but feel free to search their site if you feel the need to argue over a "miniscule detail" any further.
Hey, I'm not saying it's not interesting to a subset of the Slashdot community*, I'm only arguing that it doesn't constitute science. As I said previously, at a stretch you could call it exploration, and I guess you could call in adventuring, engineering (also at a stretch) or aviation but it's not science.
A story about gravity particles is science, but a story about a guy getting stranded somewhere because he ran out of fuel isn't. Heck, the only reason this story is considered newsworthy, and that it's here on Slashdot, is because someone refused the guy's request for fuel. If he hadn't run into trouble, or if his request for fuel hadn't been turned down then it wouldn't even have been a story at all!
The reason for it being a story has nothing to do with science at all so why's it a science story?
(* By definition, doesn't every story fit that criteria though? Even stories about cats stuck up trees or fishing will appeal to someone who reads Slashdot...)
Slashdot Mirror
Red Dwarf has a big US following so, as Americans tend to get more confused with British spellings than Brits do with American spellings*, I can see why a publisher for a book that's going to sell copies both sides of the Atlantic would pick the US spellings of words that are likely to cause confusion. I believe I raised this point about international audiences before.
As to the introductions for the classical novels that you mentioned, well, when were the intros actually written? Were they penned in 1990 or was that the year of the reprints in your possession? Also, you might want to take into account the age of the writers and the reluctance of book editors to correct introductions and forwards written by people in academia, who aren't above throwing fits if someone dares tamper with their work. And, of course, my point about international audiences still stands.
Alternatively, it could be that the academics you mentioned wrote those forwards for US-specific editions of those texts and that their contributions were reproduced verbatim in other versions. Or, that because they often write copy that will be published in the US, they err on the side of caution and always use the "-ize" form.
I'm sure it will seem to you that I'm bending over backwards to explain why "-ize" appears at all in any media here in the UK but, the fact that it doesn't appear at all in newspapers, and rarely in magazines (both of which are consumed at a greater rate than books), suggest that my theory as to why the "-ize" spelling appears at all in books might well hold some water.
I'll tell you one thing for free though: I spoke to two people I know who both teach English over here, to pupils aged 11-18, and they both agreed that "-ize" is an Americanism that they would correct to "-ise" without hesistation.
(*For proof of this, just check out how often someone who uses the word "spelt" here on Slashdot is totally dismissed by an American reader who offers the word "spelled" as being correct.)
1 USD = 1.35 AUD
1 GBP = 2.35 AUD (1 GBP = 1.75 USD)
1 EUR = 1.65 AUD (1 EUR = 1.23 USD)
(Currency values taken from http://www.x-rates.com/.)
So those 0.99 AUD downloads are equivalent to getting 0.73 USD downloads from the US iTunes music store. Not bad at all.
The 0.99 xxx artificial price point is good news for Aussies, but I can't help but think Brits (and, to a lesser extent, continental Europeans) are going to get shafted when similar stores appear for us - 0.99 GBP is 1.62 USD (and 0.99 EUR = 1.22 USD).
Hey, reading this is slow going. Anyone got a link to the PowerPoint slideshow version for dummies?
You just can't admit to getting your ass handed to you, can you? You wanted a definition of the ineligible receiver downfield rule because, if your arrogance, you didn't think I'd be able to provide one. Well that joke sure backfired, didn't it?
Wannabe American? Hardly. An appreciation for sports regardless of from where they spring is a little different from wanting to change my nationality.
No, I'm not suggesting that OUP or Harper produce unacceptable copy (if indeed they do favour "-ize") or that he main heading in almost every major dictionary in the UK is flawed.
The only thing that I am suggesting is that "-ise" is what's used almost universally throughout the British media, and "-ize" is almost universally regarded as an Americanisation (no pun intended). If you can find me one popular British publication that favours "-ize" over "-ise" or even one individual who hails from these shores who prefers the "-ize" form then I'd be amazed.
I'll say it for the third time: "-ize" may be acceptable in theory but in practice it is not.
Well, if a WR (or back) runs out of bounds and is the first player to touch the football on a downfield pass then he's an ineligible receiver and has just committed a foul.
Or, if he's bumped out of bounds by a defender and does not immediately make his way back onto the field of play as soon as possible then he's also ineligible if he touches the thrown pass before anyone else.
Alternatively, if he's a down lineman (center, guard, or offensive tackle) that's did not report in as an eligible receiver before the play, and he finds himself downfield when a forward pass is thrown, then he's also an ineligible receiver downfield, even if he is nowhere near the ball when it lands on the field or is caught.
You see, I do know that rule. I've played Madden on the Sega MegaDrive (Genesis), PC, Playstation, etc. I've also been an officially accredited journalist at WLAF/NFL Europe and American Bowl games with sideline and post-game locker-room access.
Want to ask me another NFL-related question? Perhaps you want to know how I feel about Steve McNair's chances of winning the league MVP award this year despite missing yesterday's game against Buffalo with a broken bone spur in his left ankle? Or how I feel about the Marc Bulger-Kurt Warner QB controversy?
Wonder what I think of Keyshawn Johnson being deactivated for the last six games of the season by Tampa Bay? Why Barry Sanders is my all-time favourite running back? Or how annoyed I am that I dropped Joe Horn from my fantasy team's starting lineup this week only to see him score 4TDs and pull out a cell phone too?
Think I'm making this up? Don't think I know anything about American football at all? Check out some of my NFL-related comments here, here and here. I may not be American but I bet I know more about the NFL than you'll ever do.
What do you want to test me on next? The infield fly rule? Go ahead little man, go ahead.
Firstly, as I pointed out elsewhere, football has laws, not rules. Go find the relevant reply I made elsewhere for enlightenment.
Secondly, yes I erred. That should have read "where you're from" as you pointed out. Mea culpa. That's what I get for staying up all night to watch the NFL late night game on TV.
Thirdly, I erred again. That should have read "which TV quiz has a conundrum round", but anyone who's British would have spotted the words "TV" "quiz" and "conundrum round" worked out what I was trying to say.
None of that changes the fact that the poster to whom I was replying is a lying bastard. He's about as British as Mount Rushmore and he knows it.
Lastly, I'd like to thank you for creating this new Slashdot account today just so that you could appear as a legitimate user replying to my post. (Your UID is 732930, just 23 less than the UID of the new account named "justchecking" I just created to see check my theory.)
I'd bet good money that you're the very person that I was replying to in the first place. Frankly, creating a new account just so that you could argue about my post without addressing its central issue (namely, that you're clearly not British, so pretending that you are to make your post seem more accurate is pathetic) is so sad that I don't have a superlative to describe it.
Go back to your cave, little troll.
I hate to repeat myself, so I'll simply provide you with a short link to the reply I posted to someone else, who raised the same points you did.
I should point out, as I neglected to mention in that reply, that, by their very nature, books are more international than magazines, which in turn are more international than newspapers. By "international", I mean that a single print of a book may well be distributed in several countries, or use text that originated elsewhere but which hasn't been localised for its new audience. An example of this are the companion books produced my Microsoft et al to teach people how to use their software: even the British reprints of these books use American spellings ("color", "program", etc).
The same is also true, although to a lesser extent, with magazines. The Lancet is a British publication but I would imagine that a significant proportion of its readership are outside the UK, hence I'd expect to find that "-ize" is more likely to appear in that publication than in a popular daily newspaper, such as The Daily Telegraph or The Times.
Quoting from the article:Interestingly, "-ize" wasn't found in newspapers, which are written in the here and now, by journalists writing contemporary English. Magazines contained some use of "-ize" but used "-ise" over ten times as frequently - frankly, some of this can be put down to taking extracts of books, directly using copy from a sister publication in the US (eg, the British edition of Vogue using an article that originally appeared in American Vogue but not taking the time to correct the usage), etc. And, as for books, well, I believe that I covered those in my first paragraph.
Frankly, as someone who writes and edits for a living, I'm far more aware of the everyday usage of the English language and its idiosyncrasies than most people. My evidence isn't "the stack of newspapers and magazines on [my] desk", it's over a decade of publishing experience. I said it before and I'll say it again: "-ize" may well be acceptable in theory but in practice it is not.
Perhaps you'd care to peruse British media, including books, newspapers, magazines and websites, that will leave you in no doubt that "-ise" rather than "-ize" is the appropriate spelling in the UK.
Even the spelling checkers in software applications will replace "-ize" with "-ise" when set to UK or International English. "Realized" might be understood, but "realised" is the clearly the proper spelling in this context.
The OED link that you provide might well suggest that "-ize" is acceptable in theory but in practice it is not.
Actually, there were eight questions in my original post. You don't think that "Where are you from?" is a sports question do you?
To answer your second question, law is quite correct. Do a quick google for "football laws" and you'll find plenty of links, including this one.
QED.
Well, I think I asked enough questions that weren't sports-related. I doubt he can even answer one of them without resorting to half an hour of googling.
If you're going to pretend to be British at least have the intelligence to disguise your North American upbringing.
"Welfare"? Nobody in the UK would call it welfare - that's such an Americanism it's unbelievable. As is "hawking". Try using more colloquial terms in future: eg, "benefits" instead of "welfare", "flogging" instead of "hawking". By the way, nobody uses the word "horrid" here either, apart from people living in a time warp.
"Realized"? Oh dear. Worse than using Americanisms is using American spellings. Outside North America the word is spelt "realised". Perhaps if you actually were from the UK you'd have learnt that.
If you truly are British care to tell us where your from? Want to name half a dozen British retailers you'd find on the typical high street? Care to explain the offside law? Or tell us what top job a Swede holds in England? Want to tell us what's bigger over here, Frasier, Friends, Scrubs, Sienfeld or Will and Grace? Want to tell me what the most famous football terrace in Britain's called? Or name the comics you grew up reading when you were a kid? Or which TV quiz conundrum round? Didn't think so.
Apart from all that, nice troll attempt. Now stop pretending to be something that you're not, you pathetic little man.
Uh, that's surely wrong.
America didn't formally declare war with anyone at the start of World War II because America sat it out until it was forceably drawn into the war, first by Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour then by Hitler's declaration of war on America. So, both in the case of the war in the Pacific and the war in Europe, the US was an unwilling entrant.
To pretend that the US was an active participant in WWII from the start is ridiculous. WWII started on 3rd September 1939 and the attack on Pearl Harbour took place on 7th December 1941. Germany and its ally Italy simultaneously declared war on the US on 11th December 1941.
Please, before you quote history make sure your history is accurate.
Your comparison is laughable. World War II was started when Britain and France followed through on their treaty promise to Poland that they would intervene on its behalf if its sovereignty was directly threatened by Germany. Later on, after Hitler attacked it, the Soviet Union got involved and, later still, after Germany declared war on it as well, the US reluctantly joined the war in Europe too.
That's historical fact, and more than enough reason for Britain, France, the USSR, the US and their allies to be at war with Germany. And you're comparing that and the Nazi menace that engulfed Europe and North Africa killing over 20 million in the process to a peaceful nation that posed no threat whatsoever to the US or anyone else? That's beautiful.
What next? A comparison of Mother Theresa to Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot?
Well, why don't you follow the link that I already provided elsewhere?
Presumably, you don't think that a CNN article that quotes the National Security Archive and the its executive director, a White House spokesman and a CIA official as well, and which also provides plenty of additional material and links, is "Marxist" or a "tired old myth"?
Now, go read it, go check Senate and NSA records yourself (they are public documents, after all), and then come back and tell me that's the coup wasn't CIA-led. I like to see you do that, because it would make liars of the NSA, the US Senate, the White House and the CIA itself.
QED.
Oh, so it's OK to back coups against democratically-elected governments if they are socialist?
Ah, I see now. It doesn't matter that the people of Chile elected Allende in free and fair elections. It only matters that his election wasn't desirable in Washington.
Do you even have a clue at what the word "socialist" means or even how many governments in Europe would be called socialist? Tony Blair's Labour Party may have reinvented itself, but it's essentially a socialist party. Do you see Blair ordering the murder of "comrades" and "peers"? Has the election of a Labour government ever been a justifiable reason for the US deciding to overthrow the British government?
Frankly, your post is full of lies and rubbish. "It was a bad choice between two terrible butchers", you say. Well, care to provide any evidence that Allende was a butcher?
Face facts: the CIA-led overthrow of a democratically-elected government and installation of a fascist dictator is not something in which the US should take pride. Even Colin Powell, when asked about it by a teenager on a MTV debate called it "unfortunate". If Mr Powell recognises it was wrong then why can't you?
As to your Bonus points question, let me ask you this: So, unless we do something about EVERY oppressive regime around the world at the same time, we shouldn't do anything?
No, but we shouldn't use the suffering of the Iraqi people as an excuse for settling old debts when our first excuse (WMDs) is exposed as being paper-thin.
If the US really is interested in human rights and alleviating the suffering of oppressed peoples then I can think of plenty of other places to move onto once its activities in Iraq have been concluded. Unfortunately, not too many of those other places are sitting on massive oil reserves.
Do you really believe that this war was about terrorism or WMDs? Or that American money and lives were spent so that Iraq could become a democracy? Are you really that naive?
(PS. Funny how Afghanistan has been all but forgotten, isn't it? In many ways, Afghanistan is worse now than it was pre-invasion: in many areas, schools that were previously opened are now closed, medical supplies are harder to come by and democracy certainly isn't on the horizon.
Didn't the US pledge to help rebuild that country too? Where are the billions being poured into that nation? Please point them out because I seem to have missed where they were itemised in the last US budget. Oh look, they don't exist...)
In spite of your assertions, the United States only provided Saddam with around 1% of his armaments during the period from 1973-1992.
Ignoring all other assistance (intelligence, etc) that's still 1 percent too much, isn't it? If not, what percentage would you consider to be OK before a nation becomes culpable for assisting that regime? 5 percent? 10? 20? It must be nice to be able to pretend that assisting an oppressive regime doesn't matter as long as you don't help them too much.
He was not placed in power by the U.S. and the U.K. and he helped turn back the Ayatollah and, ultimately, the spread of Soviet influence in the Middle East.
So you admit he was used by successive US administrations who were willing to turn a blind eye to his "extra-curricular" activities?
"...In the early 1970s, there were about 40 democracies in the world. By the middle of that decade, Portugal and Spain and Greece held free elections. Soon there were new democracies in Latin America, and free institutions were spreading in Korea, in Taiwan, and in East Asia..."
Just what does the fall of General Franco in Spain, etc have to do with your argument? Are you suggesting the conversion of Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc to democracies had something to do with US intervention? Was Franco killed by an exploding CIA cigar? I think not.
As for those "new democracies in Latin America", please, don't make me laugh. The US's record in Latin America is laughable, such as the 1973 CIA-backed coup in Chile that overthrew the democratically elected President President Salvador Allende in favour of a facist dictator, General Augusto Pinochet, who then proceeded to tortured and murdered tens of thousands. If that's the kind of example you want to bring up of how the US helps bring self-determination to the world then perhaps you want to think twice.
The facts are clear: when Saddam Hussein was murdering his people, the West stood by and watched, happy in the knowledge that he was being just as brutal towards Iranians as he was to his fellow Iraqis.
1. "Hundreds of thousands" might be a slight exaggeration.
2. All that went on with the blessing of the US, UK and the most of rest of the world.
Lest you forget, it was left to organisations like CND to point out that Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons on Kurdish settlements whilst countries like the US stuck their collective fingers in their ears, repeatedly chanted "la-la-la, I'm not listening", and pretended that the whole thing never happened.
You see, back then Saddam Hussein was a Good Guy (TM), because he was fighting those nasty Ayatollahs in Iran that gave the US such a bloody nose at the start of the 1980s. That he was a brutal dictator didn't matter then because he was the West's brutal dictator.
Perhaps you should switch off Fox News, pick up a history book, and ask yourself why it took the Gulf War and this latest War on Terrorism to bring his activities to your attention. For bonus points, find out where else this kind of oppression is going on and how long it's been ignored by the Western world.
Well, I'm glad that Saddam Hussein is no longer at large, but am I the only one who's a little bit disappointed that, in a news conference in which Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez (the US commander of coalition ground forces in Iraq), talked about "closure", there was no mention of weapons of mass destruction?
Sorry, but weren't WMDs what this invasion was supposedly about? Or has that all been forgotten?
What the fuck would you know? Ever been to the UK? No? Didn't think so.
For your information, dentistry here is free on the NHS, which means that British kids get a check up every six months and free correction. I'd bet good money that if you took 1,000 British kids and a 1,000 American kids at random then you'd find it was the group from the US that more uncorrected problems than those from the UK.
This "British people all have bad teeth" joke is so laughable, if only because the opposite is true.
Firstly, you started your previous reply with the one word statement "Bull", and you wonder why I got defensive?
Secondly, population density, land mass, etc are only part of the equation. Yes, a country with a low population density will tend to have a high miles of road per capita figure as will one with a large land area but other factors will play a part.
For example, cities within the UK tend to have far more miles of road within a given area than their counterparts on the continent, in the US and elsewhere. And whilst the highways figure that you quote may count just the UK's motorways, the UK's road network is criss-crossed with A roads and B roads that far outnumber those designated as motorways. If you want to see what I mean have a look at multimap.com/ and zoom in a few levels.
And, by the way, I do find it funny that you manage to start and end your posts with insults then accuse me of "just rambling" and "being annoyed".
As I pointed out elsewhere, the evidence that the UK has more miles of road per capita than anywhere else can be found in a Department of Transport consultation paper. Unfortunately, they've moved things around on their website so the link that I did have to the relevant paper no longer works but feel free to search their site if you feel the need to argue over a "miniscule detail" any further.
Hey, I'm not saying it's not interesting to a subset of the Slashdot community*, I'm only arguing that it doesn't constitute science. As I said previously, at a stretch you could call it exploration, and I guess you could call in adventuring, engineering (also at a stretch) or aviation but it's not science.
A story about gravity particles is science, but a story about a guy getting stranded somewhere because he ran out of fuel isn't. Heck, the only reason this story is considered newsworthy, and that it's here on Slashdot, is because someone refused the guy's request for fuel. If he hadn't run into trouble, or if his request for fuel hadn't been turned down then it wouldn't even have been a story at all!
The reason for it being a story has nothing to do with science at all so why's it a science story?
(* By definition, doesn't every story fit that criteria though? Even stories about cats stuck up trees or fishing will appeal to someone who reads Slashdot...)
That's a fair argument I suppose. But it's hardly like he built the thing from scratch as some people here seem to have assumed.