Michel Boucher > wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote in
:
>
>>>I'm suggesting that Webster's is not a dictionary.
>>
>> ... and therefore that Americans shouldn't use an American
>> "dictionary" when composing email? Then pray tell, what source of
>> literary accuracy SHOULD us poor colonials refer to when
>> attempting to craft verbiage that might inadvertently travel
>> across the big pond?
>>
>> Should we replace our "z" keys with an extra "u" key, perhaps?
>>
>> Is this like the UK version of the spelling police?
>
>I'm not in the UK, so the short answer is...no. You can do what you
>want but if you quote Webster's as an authority on language, I will
>not accept that. You are free to do so, but you may from time to
>time encounter opprobrium for your jejune use of local resources.

Oh puuuhhhleeeeze. (I know, that's not in your dictionary).

>Personally, I only recognize the Oxford and you, as a websterite,
>have the option of consulting the New Oxford American [sic]
>Dictionary. So don't tell me you weren't warned.
>
>http://www.oup.com/us/brochure/noad/?view=usa
>
>Oh, and unlax, doc. You're wound tighter than George Bush at a ***
>pride parade.

I'm "wound tight"?... you gotta be kidding. You're projecting, dude.

OTOH, when one would try to justify chastising someone for using a
word that's clearly proper in one of the most common dictionaries...
one could be considered "wound tight".

I should mention that someone taking exception to using language
blessed by Mr. Webster in an environment where literary accuracy is as
low as it is in these forums is a bit like ignoring the haystack while
searching for the needle - complaining about how much room the needle
takes up.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame