From: Boxer on

"Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers(a)bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
news:4791652a$1(a)news.bekkers.com.au...
> Boxer wrote:
>> Johno wrote
>
>>> The botom line is we are is in Australia and we shoold use our way of
>>> speling werds as they is spleet. So there! :P
>
>> So you are advocating for freedom to wear what you like to a pub, but
>> draw the line on freedom in the way words are spelt?
>
> You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere.
>
> Beer mate?
>
> Theo
>

Being of Irish herritage, I really don't adhear to the "English" way of
doing things.

Boxer


From: Damien on
Johno wrote:
> No Boxer, all I have stated is what is considered the correct way to
> spell a word in AUST. I am not saying it is the only to spell any
> word.

So an Australian person, working for an Australian company, located in
Australia, must always use Australian spellings - even if they happen to
be writing for an exclusively American audience???

Being in Australia is not sufficient reason to demand that "Australian"
spellings are used exclusively. The real problem here is not the form of
spelling used, but the unapologetic cultural bigotry of those who are
making the loudest objections.
From: Theo Bekkers on
Damien wrote:
> Johno wrote:

>> No Boxer, all I have stated is what is considered the correct way to
>> spell a word in AUST. I am not saying it is the only to spell any
>> word.

> So an Australian person, working for an Australian company, located in
> Australia, must always use Australian spellings - even if they happen
> to be writing for an exclusively American audience???

I would expect an Australian to use Australian spelling and an American to
use US spellings, even in discourse with each other. I doubt that an
American would be offended by an aussie using the word colour or vice versa
with color. But for an Aussie to use the word color is just wrong to me.
Even 'Labor' makes me cringe.

> Being in Australia is not sufficient reason to demand that
> "Australian" spellings are used exclusively. The real problem here is
> not the form of spelling used, but the unapologetic cultural bigotry
> of those who are making the loudest objections.

I think you're wrong about that cultural bigotry part. People resist
language change, no matter where they live, and that is not bigotry or a bad
thing. The Americans are horrified what 'hoodspeak' is doing to their
language. Word like 'mon' and 'ho' are terrible use of language. You want to
know what an undefended language sounds like? Watch Jerry Springer some
time.

Theo


From: Boxer on

"Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers(a)bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
news:47919138$1(a)news.bekkers.com.au...
>
> I would expect an Australian to use Australian spelling and an American to
> use US spellings, even in discourse with each other. I doubt that an
> American would be offended by an aussie using the word colour or vice
> versa with color. But for an Aussie to use the word color is just wrong to
> me. Even 'Labor' makes me cringe.
>
> Theo

I agree Labor has made me cringe for ages.

Boxer


From: Damien on
Theo Bekkers wrote:

> I would expect an Australian to use Australian spelling and an American to
> use US spellings, even in discourse with each other. I doubt that an
> American would be offended by an aussie using the word colour or vice versa
> with color. But for an Aussie to use the word color is just wrong to me.
> Even 'Labor' makes me cringe.

So if the Australian in question was a journalist writing for an
American newspaper, but based out of their home/office here, then you'd
still expect them to use Australian spellings?

> I think you're wrong about that cultural bigotry part. People resist

I think I'm spot-on. Not one single person has opposed "American"
spellings by providing specific and non-cultural evidence of the
superiority of "Australian" spellings. Not even once. In every single
instance, their demands have been exclusively on the grounds that
Australian spellings should be used because we're Australian and
American spellings should be rejected because they're American. That
says it's all about culture, nothing else, and anyone who makes their
demands on that basis alone is a bigot.

> language change, no matter where they live, and that is not bigotry or a bad
> thing. The Americans are horrified what 'hoodspeak' is doing to their
> language. Word like 'mon' and 'ho' are terrible use of language. You want to
> know what an undefended language sounds like? Watch Jerry Springer some
> time.

And now you're talking about something completely different altogether.
The various "street" variants of language are corruptions, they are not
officially recognised as being correct and accceptable in formal
contexts due to their informal nature. Was it intentional that you
neglected to also refer to similar Australian corruptions, such as
strine etc?