"Americanisms" that Brits hate

I think I'd rather give a cat meth, and have him scratch a chalkboard all day, than listen to Brits talk, no matter how correct they think they speak English.

 

Says the guy from the state where they think a hot tub is a stolen bathroom fixture.

 

Have you guys stopped chewing on limestone yet? I'm pretty sure that's bad for the teeth.

 

Ermmm ... I'm not entirely sure that all Britons speak English correctly, but most of us are sufficiently familar with basic grammar not to use a phrase such as 'no matter how correct they think they speak English'.

 

Apparently, irony has a different meaning in your dictionary.

Given that JPSartre was a commie and I'm a commie hater, that's irony.

There's another meaning of the word that I'm using above.

 

Ah, yes, those pesky details. Why bother with them when one can simply make general, sweeping statements? No doubt the monotony of fact-checking does seem less interesting than a conversation with plasterboard, in your opinion.

In theory, yes (although as well all know Presidents exercise Executive Orders furiously). But that's only a tiny part of the equation. The actual implementation of a mandate, whether it took one minute to decree or one month to debate, is the core issue.

You find it odd that I would "dredge" up 80 year old Soviet history to support my claim about... 80 year old Soviet history? Odd, as I, in fact, find it odd that you found that odd.

Yes it did; I've already proven you wrong on this.

Not interstates.

Yes, we have seen how well our bloated government handles the borders. Thank you for proving my point.

Who said anything about whimsy? What's whimsical about wanting efficient administration?

To each his own, I suppose.

 

Have you deliberately skipped over my scathing inquiries?

 

Fact checking? Like where I used your own reference to disprove your thesis?I believe the term for that is "hoisted on your own petard". LOL

You brought up 80 year old Soviet history to support your contention that the USSR wasn't able to act more swiftly than the US in political matters. The discussion wasn't about ancient Russia. Nice try, though. Someone less skilled in dealing with libs might have bought that BS.

Only in your dreams.

Please.....you have to stop lobbing softballs for me to hit out of the park.
When have you EVER seen a Federal road crew working on roads? Even interstates are built and maintained by the state. At best, the Feds provide matching funding.

That's because they've allowed short-sighted political pressure to interfere with their Constitutionally-mandated responsibility.

I don't want my president and government to act based solely on the latest polling numbers obtained by a leftwing media. We had that under Clinton and now under Obama. The best thing I can say about GW is that his position was "fuck the polls; I'll do what I think is right." It often wasn't, but he had the right attitude none-the-less.

Yes, and I could have made a comment about your nom de plume being apropos since you appear to be as dense as a rock.....Plymouth Rock, that is.

 

I've been hoisted with nothing, let alone mine own petard. I already told you this: Autonomous does not equal efficient. Your point is both null and void.

Another prime example of your self-proclaimed superior wit?

Like the insignificant United States Highway Trust fund? The 30 billion dollars it collects per annum to finance highway maintenance and development is quite clearly chump change. Pennies on the dollar, really -- who needs it?

Ah yes, like Operation Fast and Furious, perhaps? You know, all those politicians pushing poorly planed policies just to get elected and whatnot. Who wouldn't want to send a representative back to Congress who just willing shipped dozens of AK 47s (which will no doubt end up killing American civilians at some point in time down the road) across the border to Mexico? Clearly, that Congressman had a finger on the pulse of his constituents!

...

What are you on about now? We've now jumped from efficient space shuttle administration to George bush fornicating with allegedly left-wing media institutions... The point in all this being...?

More of your veritably fabled repartee -- ad hominems, the last refuge of a bested man.

Also, please, stop misusing French phrases. A nom de plume, literally a "pen name," is used by an author who wishes to distance himself from his work(s). What we have here on PF are screen names, noms d'utilisateur -- there's a marked difference. I'm sure your dear Sartre would be understandably appalled by this misemploy.

As an individual who is trying to tell me what my own argument was -- incorrectly, at that -- you're certainly one to be speaking of rocks.

I said you would feel more at home under the Soviet politburo. Additionally, I did not say that "the USSR wasn't able to act more swiftly than the US in political matters;" you've gone and fabricated that yourself. Either way, the politburo was around in the USSR during Trotsky's time, and if I choose to utilize that era to make my argument then that is my business -- and it is a perfectly legitimate business, at that. I understand that for people such as yourself the concept of there being history prior to the Reagan administration is somewhat shocking, but, indeed, there is.

So, please, don't try to sit there and reinvent my argument to suit your ends. Go back and read more carefully, and you will see that my train of thought is perfectly cogent; you're the one whose gone and bungled it all up.

 

LOL. You still want to argue that the USSR couldn’t enact change quicker than the US? Like I said, drywall.

Better to have a full one than to be a half-wit, like you.

What part of “matching funds” went over your head? Uncle sam doesn’t build roads, it doles out cash to those that do.

Thank you for making my point that Congress SHOULDN’T act quickly and superficially, just to get re-elected.

The point being that he didn’t let today’s poll numbers guide his policies. I’m surprised that such an obvious point went well over your head.

Au contraire. I consider them the coup de grâce.

You’re entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. Mine is a non de plume because I’ve always considered my internet persona as being my alterego. Since no one knows my real identity, it prevents retribution from mound of liberal carcasses that I’ve piled up over the years.

You’re spinning your words now, Plymouth. Your intent was well understood and totally wrong. I said that I preferred a deliberate government and you suggested the USSR would suit me better. Epic fail on your part.

 

No, not at all. That particular response was to Bluespade, but, please, direct me towards the 'scathing inquiry' I have inadvertently overlooked.

And as this thread is about language, I hope you will forgive my asking if such a thing as a 'scathing inquiry' is linguistically possible. A scathing comment, remark, or rejoinder, is not uncommon, but I do not readily see how an inquiry (which is a search or request for information) may be scathing.

 

I'm surprised I have to explain this to you... Scathing in the sense of damaging. D-a-m-ning questions, if you will. It's not really a difficult concept.

As for the thing, it was a few pages back.

 

I never said "quicker than the US." You, as I said, have fabricated that...

The fact that I've managed to run circles around you without your comprehending it proves quite the opposite, regardless of whether your personal perceptions are capable of discerning this fact.

You stated that "at best, they match funds," which is patently false. That particular fund is not a matching program, plain and simple. So, "at best," as you say, the federal government certainly does much more.

We also mustn't forget that it was the federal government which signed into law the Federal Highway Act of 1956, a bill that began construction of the system.

Shall I find you a link to a page which details the intricacies of sarcasm? It would appear that you're in desperate need of a lesson on that topic...

It didn't, but clearly my rebuttal went over yours.

Yet I'm still standing, and on the higher ground, no less.

Opinions cannot be wrong, as they are inherently subjective things. What I am telling you is a fact. Noms de plume are used in literary circles, noms d'utilisateur are used in internet forums. It's that simple; what you have just said is wholly erroneous.

There are a great many things on this earth which may be debated, but French grammar is decidedly not one of them.

No spinning of words here; if you failed to wrap your gyri around what I said, it's certainly through no fault of my own.

Although, I'm glad that I've finally -- somehow, inexplicably -- gotten through to you. What you stated above was the entirety of my point. The quantification of temporal contests between the US and the USSR as regards their mobilization was certainly not something I came up with. You injected that on your own.

 

Not difficult at all, just inaccurate. Questions can be leading, they can be awkward, they can be impertinent, or they can be implicitly insulting - such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"; but AFIK, only answers can be dam-ning, scathing, or damaging to one's reputation.

 

Now your arguement has fallen into the region of polemics and semantics. Just as Brits refer to an automobile's external engine shield as a bonnet, American's call it a hood. I don't think members of either culture would confuse this sheet metal part with an apparel worn on or about the human head. Or what about requesting a phone call, most Brits say; "phone me up" instead of "call me". The same logic should apply to you reference of; excuse me or pardon me. To imply a deeper meaning of some sort of arrogant demand, is going a bit overboard. By extension, when using the descriptive word "Black" when referring to people of African decent, suggest to some, not just an abstact reference to people of color, but a deeper cultural allusion to something evil or nefarious. In a world of technology that has drawn us closer together, we ALL need to catch up with a broader range of thought that includes humans as a race rather than disparate cultural groups vying for equality

 

For me RP and American accent are very easy to understand, and I would say that RP is easier than American.

The worst accents are Irish and Scotts. I have many trouble with both.

 

LOL, might I say that you are not alone. I was talking to an Irish lady some years ago who was referring to me as a 'good buy'. I was puzzling over this reference to an astute purchase, until another Irish lady told me she was calling me a good boy. Another peculiarity of some Irish counties is this question to the mother of a baby, "Is it a buy or a child?"

 

I was being facetious. I have said "excuse me" in lieu of "get the **** out of my way", and I'm sure Brits have said "pardon me" to politely say the same. Yes, we are all people, and being same species some things are universal regardless of cultural differences, some enjoy a roast or ribbing in good fun from time to time, and that is all that is being done here.

 

Im a native english speaker and I also have trouble with these accents.

 

Not inaccurate at all... lol. Questions which are meant to damage. If a question may be implicitly scornful (which going by your previous definition would be impossible), as you say, why may it not be implicitly damaging? The simple answer is that it may be. A question may be asked with the intent of damaging someone or something, thus it is a damaging question -- a question of the damaging sort, if you will.

 

Well, it is a rather nice point, and one which we could spend the rest of our lives debating, so I will concede that questions (such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?") can be implicitly damaging to one's reputation.

 

Thank you. That was all I was trying to get across.

By the way... I've taken the liberty of retyping my previous question: Where all have you lived outside of England and Australia?

 

Jaysus! I'm nearly 18, and in my last year of high school. How many countries do you think it would be possible (or likely) for me to have lived in, and continued my education? I have spent some time in (but not been domiciled there) in the USA, and some more time in Germany (where I used to spend my Christmas holidays). I have visited (as a tourist, and for short periods - from a week to a couple of days,) the following other countries.

Canada
Mexico
Nicaragua
Denmark
Norway
Sweden
Finland
Belgium
Holland
France
Switzerland
Italy
Austria
Hungary
China
Burma
Thailand
Malaysia
Singapore
Vietnam
Hong Kong
The Philippines
New Zealand

I make no pretence of knowing all about countries of which I have seen little, and know less.

 

Quite the traveler, eh? Anyway, my point in all this was to discern whether or not you've had the opportunity to live amongst a non-English speaking populace extensively (there are people who go abroad for a year in high school, attend international schools, or who have simply moved abroad with parents). As an individual who has, and who knows people who have, I can stand by my assertion that non-native English speakers seem to find the American Standard to be the most neutral accent (ostensibly because of the significant global presence of American popular culture). I was curious if you had different experience, but as you have not resided abroad extensively then I suppose you couldn't have.

 

The only non-English-speaking country in which I have spent a reasonable time, is Germany (where I have relatives). No German of my acquaintance considers the American dialect to be more understandable than Received Pronunciation, and no German I know speaks English with an American accent. I know that there are a number of Germans who have learnt American-English from American servicemen etc, but I did not encounter them. They would be older Germans anyway, as British English is taught in German schools, and all young Germans speak it beautifully - much better than most Brits.