A Step In The Right Direction

[Captain Seafort]

If I live in Boston, I and I'm over in Cape Cod, I don't need to tell someone who lives in Massachusetts that I live in Boston, Mass. Its unnecessary.

Whether or not it's necessary is irrelevant - if the shortened form is used in formal government documents then it's official. It's the same as the UK - no-one complains about anyone not using the full title because a) it's quite a mouthful and b) the shortened form is quite acceptable even in formal documents.

[Deepcrush]

Technically, US is incorrect as well.

It's good enough - there are plenty of documents around referring to "these United States".

If you could please, show us an official document that uses only the term "United States".

[Captain Seafort]

Try the US Constitution - it only uses the country's Sunday-best title three times.

[Deepcrush]

As I said, if you could please show us.

[Captain Seafort]

As I said, if you could please show us.

Transcript

[Deepcrush]

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... oom_1.html

This would have been better.

However, it seems a bit weird that you had to go back to our founding of the current union for such and at the same time attack others for doing the same. However, yes there's another, this title was amended later from "United States" to the current "United States of America".

Though this aside, the current seal of the United States is in fact "The Great Seal of the United States of America". There for if you are going to be as accurate as you expect of others. You need to address the United States of America as the United States of America, or USA for shorthand, from this point onwards. If not then we should consider all of your comments involving the term United States or US as void due to your own restrictions.

[Captain Seafort]

However, it seems a bit weird that you had to go back to our founding of the current union for such and at the same time attack others for doing the same.

I do nothing of the sort - I merely object to the entire country being referred to by the name of one of its constituent elements. How would you like it if I referred to the entire country as "California"?

You need to address the United States of America as the United States of America, or USA for shorthand, from this point onwards. If not then we should consider all of your comments involving the term United States or US as void due to your own restrictions.

Why? I have no objection to people using "UK" or "United Kingdom", which is the equivalent of using "US" or "United States" - it's an abbreviated but not inaccurate form of the name.

[Deepcrush]

I do nothing of the sort - I merely object to the entire country being referred to by the name of one of its constituent elements. How would you like it if I referred to the entire country as "California"?

While this is about as stupid a twist as you can get, I'll humor this. IF you're referring to me or one of the thirty million people born in or living in California as Californians... It would be entirely correct. Since you live in England, calling you as such would also be correct. However this has nothing to do with the topic is any fashion other then you're trying to excuse yourself for your mis-action and looking for bull-way out of it.

Why? I have no objection to people using "UK" or "United Kingdom", which is the equivalent of using "US" or "United States" - it's an abbreviated but not inaccurate form of the name.

Yet you have an objection to people speaking about the country that was responsible for founding the UK. The USA isn't just in America, it has protectorates and citizens and holdings across the world.

Seafort, before you dig any deeper into a silly and rather stupid area. Just go back to the topic at hand and save yourself the trouble.

[Captain Seafort]

While this is about as stupid a twist as you can get, I'll humor this. IF you're referring to me or one of the thirty million people born in or living in California as Californians... It would be entirely correct. Since you live in England, calling you as such would also be correct. However this has nothing to do with the topic is any fashion other then you're trying to excuse yourself for your mis-action and looking for bull-way out of it.

This all started with a comment about "England" (clearly said in the sense of the entire country - i.e. the UK) trading with the CSA, so it's definitely on topic (or as on-topic as DITL gets).

Yet you have an objection to people speaking about the country that was responsible for founding the UK.

When it's used as a synonym for the UK, yes.

Just go back to the topic at hand

Which is what? Proving that stitch doesn't know basic physics?

[stitch626]

Which is what? Proving that stitch doesn't know basic physics?

Only thing proven is you don't understand air quotes.

[Deepcrush]

(or as on-topic as DITL gets).

This, I can't argue without being dishonest and having to bash myself for lying.

When it's used as a synonym for the UK, yes.

Since that are a number of different languages across the world, as I'm sure you know. You'll have to expect and accept that translations will be mixed from time to time and move along with a topic rather then derailing it for sake of a point of no value.

Which is what? Proving that stitch doesn't know basic physics?

I, with my rather pathetic abilities in math, will choose to not judge people on the basics of math as I prefer to judge only on topics to which I have a firm understanding.

[Mikey]

Leave Stitch alone. And yes, I did use "England" as a synonym for the UK, and I will likely do so again. I regard writing here as tantamount to speaking conversationally; and guess what, Seafort? Like it or not, around here "England" is commonly used idiomatically as a synonym for the UK. Ergo, when writing/speaking conversationally, I have no problem whatsoever with speaking in the local vernacular. You use terms like "arse" freely, and would rant on and on if I stood you up on it; this is no different. I know what I meant, you know what I meant, and everyone else knew what I meant; so why waste the time beleaguering this point?

Unless you're willing to prove to me that "California" is commonly used in England (or Wales, or Scotland, or occupied (Northern) Ireland) to refer to the United States of America, then your analogy is completely empty. The point is not what the term "England" means to you; rather, it's what it means to the person who said it (me.) Otherwise, your constant use of local vernacular would be completely improper.

[Captain Seafort]

Since that are a number of different languages across the world, as I'm sure you know. You'll have to expect and accept that translations will be mixed from time to time and move along with a topic rather then derailing it for sake of a point of no value.

I suppose that's the UK/US for you - two countries divided by a common language, as the saying goes. Can't even bum a fag off someone your side of the pond.

[Deepcrush]

I suppose that's the UK/US for you - two countries divided by a common language, as the saying goes. Can't even bum a fag off someone your side of the pond.

Sure you could, though with as tight-assed as you are I'd expect you'd have trouble sitting for a while.

[Reliant121]

He means steal a cigarette