![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Ottava |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Ãœber Pokemon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,917 Joined: Member No.: 7,328 ![]() |
Fun stuff. I wonder if the Wiki people can claim this is evil Western colonialism at work.
|
![]() ![]() |
Retrospect |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Londoner born and bred ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 263 Joined: From: London Member No.: 71,989 ![]() |
And here's another one:
QUOTE I've been calling, and referring to Britons thinking of it as a friendly nikname. I wasn't intending to be offensive, but was. |
Ottava |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Ãœber Pokemon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,917 Joined: Member No.: 7,328 ![]() |
And here's another one: QUOTE I've been calling, and referring to Britons thinking of it as a friendly nikname. I wasn't intending to be offensive, but was. Doesn't prove anything. Brit is not offensive and never will be, just like Yank is not. Even your own link has: "I take the easy way out.....I would much rather be called a Scot first and foremost. Being called a Brit is ok by me too......it has the same short, sharp no nonsense ring to it like Scot. " The thing is, they have to make up some stupid reason to claim it is offensive. British people and Brits don't find it offensive. Just trolls like you do. Even the British newspapers constantly shorten it to Brit. When you quote, like your link or from mine, you take a minority and try to act like it is the majority. That is in the definition of trolling. So stop the trolling. |
Retrospect |
![]()
Post
#4
|
Londoner born and bred ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 263 Joined: From: London Member No.: 71,989 ![]() |
Doesn't prove anything. Brit is not offensive and never will be Ruddy great troll, aren't you? Ignoring anything that opposes your view as "trolling" is a classic troll technique in itself. Did you know that you won't find "Brit", in that meaning, in the whole of Webster's 3rd New International? Not because it didn't exist then; the new Collegiate dates it to 1901. Because it was too bloody offensive to go in! And note that Tarc deliberately used the term because he knew it was offensive. If that were true, fuckwit, you'd know we hate being called "Brits". I know, that is why I used it on purpose. |
Ottava |
![]()
Post
#5
|
Ãœber Pokemon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,917 Joined: Member No.: 7,328 ![]() |
Because it was too bloody offensive to go in! No. Websters uses "Brit" as an adjective dating back quite a long time. You chose an incomplete dictionary to make a failed point. That dictionary is a "linguistic aid" for those who don't speak English. "Brit" was their preferred descriptive of a British person because it was short, concise and to the point. We don't approve of "Briton" or "Britisher" here in the States. You have failed in every single argument you have made. That makes you either a troll or extremely incompetent. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that your errors were purposeful. If you want, I can just label you as one of the stupidest people ever. This post has been edited by Ottava: |
Retrospect |
![]()
Post
#6
|
Londoner born and bred ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 263 Joined: From: London Member No.: 71,989 ![]() |
Because it was too bloody offensive to go in! No. Websters uses "Brit" as an adjective dating back quite a long time. You chose an incomplete dictionary to make a failed point. That dictionary is a "linguistic aid" for those who don't speak English. "Brit" was their preferred descriptive of a British person because it was short, concise and to the point. We don't approve of "Briton" or "Britisher" here in the States. You have failed in every single argument you have made. That makes you either a troll or extremely incompetent. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that your errors were purposeful. If you want, I can just label you as one of the stupidest people ever. Hey, either you're bloody stupider than I believed possible or you're lying through your arse. Aren't you supposed to be at a university? Go to the ruddy library and look up Webster's Third New International. The Google links don't prove your point at all, because they don't show that Webster's Third New International gives that meaning of "Brit"; they can't show what bloody isn't there. QUOTE You chose an incomplete dictionary to make a failed point. That dictionary is a "linguistic aid" for those who don't speak English. So the Third New International, a huge comprehensive reference work, doesn't give that meaning of "Brit". "an incomplete dictionary ... a "linguistic aid" for those who don't speak English" does. Or are you saying it's the Third New International that's incomplete? I can rest my case. Nobody but you would remain unconvinced. This post has been edited by Retrospect: |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |