Dud, don't call me an ass when the proof goes the other way. You posted:
The "inventor" of it called it "alumium". The standard spelling was aluminium right from the start.
Your mistake was to take the quote about what the inventor first called it and stick it right next to the quote about how it was spelled in America from the start. You made it look like it was spelled as "aluminium" right from the start, which I'm sure you'll agree is incorrect - based on the source you provided.
Now, I could either assume you did that out of malicious intent or by mistake. Based on the fact that you were being polite (as opposed to now), I assumed it was an honest mistake. Given the fact that these English Wars are always quite silly, I generally approach them as a "rabid American" for the fun of it, and most people catch on and play their parts, too. This doesn't mean I falsify facts, but I play up the ones that support my point when I can.
This was the spirit in which I replied to your correction, as well as to the spirited anti-American comments made by Spisefisken (which I also took to be more funning). Thus, the "only in backward countries" comment, which is perfectly justified in context. Both sides are playing at being rude and intolerant, but you ignore the half that agrees with you and take actual umbrage at the defensive side.
You'll pardon my weak English skills, but I only now realized you erroneously accused me of claiming England was a backward country because of their pronunciation. Heh. It was directed at Spisefisken's country specifically. Yours was only included obliquely, which is not nearly as forceful as you make it sound. Not to mention the fact that it was clearly in jest!
As to your correction, which was duly noted, I should have said it was both older AND newer than the one in use in Europe. Thank you again for showing some more history of the word.
You responded by insinuating I was purposely trying to mislead perhaps?. And *how* did I misread my own reference?
If I want to insinuate something, I will make it clear (but, obviously, without explicitly stating it - else it wouldn't be an insinuation). I was precisely stating what you did. If plain speech is now going to be misinterpreted as insinuation, I'm sure the world will be ending none too soon. I don't think you were doing it on purpose, chucklehead. I do think you weren't aware of the obvious effect your poorly quoted passage had. Hopefully you are now aware of it.
And if you are done insulting me, I will be done, likewise. I just hope you don't take the egging on of LionsPhil to goad you to more unjustified hubris. He likes to do that when he's been shamelessly one-upped. I won't expect an apology from you, since I so rarely get them even after showing someone why they were wrong. But I also won't expect repeated attacks, since you seem to be a mature enough person. |
