Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.usa
From: peter@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H. M. Brooks")
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!peernews.demon.co.uk!psyche.demon.co.uk!peter
Subject: Re: Differences between American + British english
References: <795681149snz@duntone.demon.co.uk> <3mensc$1ko@netnews.upenn.edu> <797633329snz@psyche.demon.co.uk> <1995Apr13.181319.24740@inca.comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Organization: Psyche Trading Company
Reply-To: peter@psyche.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
Lines: 18
X-Posting-Host: psyche.demon.co.uk
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 22:06:53 +0000
Message-ID: <797810813snz@psyche.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

In article <1995Apr13.181319.24740@inca.comlab.ox.ac.uk>
           ehrlich@sable.ox.ac.uk "Charles Ehrlich" writes:

> 
> This is a very British argument, that of saying that something has always been
> one way and therefore should stay that way.  It is why the UK is very slow to
> change anything.  Just because people have been insulting each other since the
> dawn of time does not mean that insults are necessary.
> 
You, no doubt, have the counter argument to hand but chose not to deploy it.
> 
> (Did anybody notice that Peter Brooks' last two "sentences" were not 
> sentences?)
> 
Yes, I did.

-- 
Peter H. M. Brooks
