Egypt Bans Online Porn, Should we send them a link to Commons? Options

[Ottava]

Fun stuff. I wonder if the Wiki people can claim this is evil Western colonialism at work.

[Retrospect]

And here's another one:

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]

And here's another one:

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]

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]

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]

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.

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:

[Ottava]

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

I can quote the introduction but it clearly says it is for beginners and not a complete dictionary. It is the equivalent of Simple Wiki. You know it as I even pointed it out. Yet here you are, trolling more.


Here is the best troll line

a huge comprehensive reference work

You've obviously never seen real dictionaries before if you think that edition of Webster's is huge or comprehensive. Johnson's dictionary was roughly 4 times longer than that one and still wasn't as comprehensive as the Unabridged Websters (note that term "unabridged") or the OED.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Retrospect]

You've obviously never seen real dictionaries before if you think that edition of Webster's is huge or comprehensive. Johnson's dictionary was roughly 4 times longer than that one and still wasn't as comprehensive as the Unabridged Websters (note that term "unabridged") or the OED.

And you're a bloody liar. The Webster's Third New International is the Webster's Unabridged.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/book.pl?w3.htm


This post has been edited by Retrospect:

[Ottava]

You've obviously never seen real dictionaries before if you think that edition of Webster's is huge or comprehensive. Johnson's dictionary was roughly 4 times longer than that one and still wasn't as comprehensive as the Unabridged Websters (note that term "unabridged") or the OED.

And you're a bloody liar. The Webster's Third New International is the Webster's Unabridged.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/book.pl?w3.htm

No.

Read the introduction.

It is only an unabridged of terms for foreigners. It is not unabridged for all of their words. It is amazing how small you think their complete dictionary would be.

From the Preface:

"Merriam Company now offers Webster's Third New International Dictionary to the English speaking world as a prime linguisitic aid to interpreting the culture and civilization of today... The demands for space have made necessary a fresh judgment on the claims of many parts of the old vocabulary. This dictionary is the result of a highly selective process in which discarding material of insubstantial or evanescent quality has gone hand in hand with adding terms that have obtained a place in the language. It confines itself strictly to generic words and their functions, forms, sounds, and meanings as distinguished from proper names that are not generic. Selection is guided by usefulness, and usefulness is determined by the degree to which terms most likely to be looked for are included."

It is neither comprehensive nor their complete set of definitions. It is done for an international audience of words that they feel are the top necessary words. That edition is limited. Even Wikipedia mentions that. And here is a key section: "He eliminated the 'nonlexical matter' that more properly belongs to an encyclopedia, including all names of people and places (which had filled two appendices). There were no more mythological, biblical, and fictional names, nor the names of buildings, historical events, or art works. "

Their complete, unabridged, American edition ("Collegiate" edition) is online and behind a pay wall along with the actually unabridged "International" edition. It use to be accessible via dictionary.com before they went their own way with pay walls and such.


I think it is odd that you are trying to start a fight over dictionary history with me and my proven background in the field.