Re: Guardian 23000

Simon Montagu wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 05:41:23 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >Simon Montagu wrote:
> >>
> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>
> >> > The point is more that you (Brits) are writing as though yours is the
> >> > only version of the language (oh, plus the Scots words that are in
> >> > Chambers) that amounts to anything.
> >>
> >> No, but it tends to be the version of the language most relevant to
> >> crosswords published in British newspapers.
> >
> >Not all, in fact not most, crosswords are published in British
> >newspapers.
> 
> I never said they were. Maybe nobody remembers any more, but this
> thread once seemed to be about a clue in the Guardian.

Yet you refer to "crosswords published in British newspapers."

I was probably not referring to a clue in the Guardian, but you snipped
the context.

> >> I am curious: do you address people from other nations and ethnic groups
> >> by offensive abbreviations, or only the British?
> >
> >If you're "offended" by "Brit," then I trust you've written many, many
> >letters to, e.g., the BBC.
> 
> Yes, I am offended by "Brit", also by "Yid". Chinese people are often
> offended by "Chink" and Japanese by "Jap". Need I go on?
> 
> I don't understand what the BBC has to do with it. Has it been renamed
> to the Brit Broadcast Corp?

BBC personalities regularly refer to themselves and others as "Brits."

> >Regulars at this very newsgroup have complained about references to them
> >as "English," and there isn't any adjective at all for "UK."
> 
> Well, if it comes to that you are still using the word as if it meant
> "English", since you refer to Scots words as a different category.

Can you not even distinguish between language and nationality?
-- 
Peter T. Daniels                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]