# Reliablest cars...

P

#### pfjw@aol.com

##### Guest
OK - let us discuss the \"British U\" such as in colo u r and so forth. Which has been around for a very long time. But for the purposes of this specious argument, let us agree on 300 years as an arbitrary figure.
a) Each printed U takes up space on paper, ink, space on the printing plate and so forth.
b) That space has an associated cost. Again, being arbitrary, let us agree that each one hundred Us are worth one British penny, then and now.
c) I believe that it would be fair to suggest that at least a billion extra Us were printed per year since 1700.

https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1700?amount=1

That first year would be Â£417 in 1700 (240 pence to the pound). Over the last 300 years, the average earned interest rate is about 4.5%.
Just for giggles, let us use that same Â£417 as a periodic deposit for the same 300 years. That is highly conservative as that Â£417 would be more like Â£26,271 today.

Care to guess what those Us cost the British and Brit-speak economies over the last 300 years?

\$5,259,278,881.34 And that is only if the first-cost is *as little as * Â£417 *.

And you dare to criticize American spelling?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

M

#### Mike Coon

##### Guest
peterwieck33@gmail.com says...
OK - let us discuss the \"British U\" such as in colo u r and so forth. Which has been around for a very long time. But for the purposes of this specious argument, let us agree on 300 years as an arbitrary figure.
a) Each printed U takes up space on paper, ink, space on the printing plate and so forth.
b) That space has an associated cost. Again, being arbitrary, let us agree that each one hundred Us are worth one British penny, then and now.
c) I believe that it would be fair to suggest that at least a billion extra Us were printed per year since 1700.

https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1700?amount=1

That first year would be £417 in 1700 (240 pence to the pound). Over the last 300 years, the average earned interest rate is about 4.5%.
Just for giggles, let us use that same £417 as a periodic deposit for the same 300 years. That is highly conservative as that £417 would be more like £26,271 today.

Care to guess what those Us cost the British and Brit-speak economies over the last 300 years?

\$5,259,278,881.34 And that is only if the first-cost is *as little as * £417 *.

And you dare to criticize American spelling?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
And now we can add rubbish math! (To which we would always add at least
an \"s\".)

Mike.

J

#### John-Del

##### Guest
On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 11:37:02 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 3/08/2020 11:35 am, John-Del wrote:
On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 4:57:44 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Japanese cars don\'t rust (for
the most part). You\'re thinking of European cars. They rust.

Saying Japanese cars don\'t rust is equivalent to saying the earth is flat, and Toyotas are by far the worst of the bunch.

Google Tacoma frame rot. The entire frame must be replaced.

**Typical American crap construction. The Tocoma was not a Japanese
vehicle.

Clearly Toyota should have been taking more care with their American
workers.
How silly. There has never been any difference between American assembled Japanese cars and those assembled in Japan, or any other assy point around the world for that matter The Tacoma is a Toyota.

But your motivation hasn\'t escaped me. So, how about the 4Runner then?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jensen/2018/12/18/new-class-action-claims-more-toyota-trucks-have-dangerous-rusty-frames/#5f5939b77302

Every one built in Japan, ie NOT in America.

Or this link which describes Toyotas rusting away since the early 70s.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/trucks/a6630/top-automotive-engineering-failures-toyota-truck-rust/

M

#### Michael Terrell

##### Guest
The 1973 Toyta Corona that I owned rusted quite badly. Only 1000 were imported. No spare parts, and very shoddy design of the disk brakes. They worked, going forward, but they would eject the pads is you had to slam them on in re reverse. The emergency brakes were a joke, as well.

T

#### Trevor Wilson

##### Guest
On 3/08/2020 11:06 pm, pfjw@aol.com wrote:
OK - let us discuss the \"British U\" such as in colo u r and so forth. Which has been around for a very long time. But for the purposes of this specious argument, let us agree on 300 years as an arbitrary figure.
a) Each printed U takes up space on paper, ink, space on the printing plate and so forth.
b) That space has an associated cost. Again, being arbitrary, let us agree that each one hundred Us are worth one British penny, then and now.
c) I believe that it would be fair to suggest that at least a billion extra Us were printed per year since 1700.

https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1700?amount=1

That first year would be Â£417 in 1700 (240 pence to the pound). Over the last 300 years, the average earned interest rate is about 4.5%.
Just for giggles, let us use that same Â£417 as a periodic deposit for the same 300 years. That is highly conservative as that Â£417 would be more like Â£26,271 today.

Care to guess what those Us cost the British and Brit-speak economies over the last 300 years?

\$5,259,278,881.34 And that is only if the first-cost is *as little as * Â£417 *.

And you dare to criticize American spelling?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
**Let\'s add all those idiotic American words, like \'burglarize\' (the
correct word is \'burgle\' (that is a phenomenal FOUR extra letters for
the idiotic American spelling), \'anethesiologist\', rather than the
correct \'anaesthetist\' and so on. Americans tend to use a lot of surplus
words to describe simple things. \'Absolutely\' rather than \'yes\' springs
to mind.

One concession I will make to Americans\' desire to make words simpler is
that surrounding the pronunciation of \'lieutenant\'. The American
pronunciation does make sense.

-

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

P

#### Pimpom

##### Guest
On 8/4/2020 1:21 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
One concession I will make to Americans\' desire to make words simpler is
that surrounding the pronunciation of \'lieutenant\'. The American
pronunciation does make sense.

-
Their \'El-Tee\' is shorter too.

M

#### Mike

##### Guest
In article <hor86cF5obvU1@mid.individual.net>,
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>\'Absolutely\' rather than \'yes\' springs to mind.

Oh that is *super* annoying.

The latest trend in avoiding using \"very\" in its correct context

--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[-at-]signal11.org.uk | http://www.signal11.org.uk

T

#### Trevor Wilson

##### Guest
On 4/08/2020 6:38 am, Mike wrote:
In article <hor86cF5obvU1@mid.individual.net>,
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

\'Absolutely\' rather than \'yes\' springs to mind.

Oh that is *super* annoying.

The latest trend in avoiding using \"very\" in its correct context
**Don\'t get me started. The term \'very unique\' springs to mind. YIKES!

Then again: I watch \'Escape to the Country\' from British TV. Every time
some nong says: \"Oh, that is very homely\". I just want to scream.

Look up \'homely\' in the dictionary, you stupid poms.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

P

#### Pimpom

##### Guest
On 8/4/2020 3:17 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 4/08/2020 6:38 am, Mike wrote:
In article <hor86cF5obvU1@mid.individual.net>,
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

\'Absolutely\' rather than \'yes\' springs to mind.

Oh that is *super* annoying.

The latest trend in avoiding using \"very\" in its correct context

**Don\'t get me started. The term \'very unique\' springs to mind. YIKES!

Then again: I watch \'Escape to the Country\' from British TV. Every time
some nong says: \"Oh, that is very homely\". I just want to scream.

Look up \'homely\' in the dictionary, you stupid poms.
Here in multi-racial multi-cultural India, arranged marriage is
the norm among the majority races (not with my own minority
people). I\'m both amused and aghast to see matrimonial ads in
newspapers and magazines almost invariably describing a
prospective bride as \'homely\'.

Indian English is based on British English but I didn\'t know the
Brits used \'homely\' the same way.

A

#### Andy Burns

##### Guest
Trevor Wilson wrote:

Every time some nong says: \"Oh, that is very homely\". I just want to
scream.
Look up \'homely\' in the dictionary, you stupid poms.
That\'s because it\'s a programme made by brits, for brits, and that\'s the
way we use the word, to describe homes. Feel free to export your tv
shows to us and use words the way you use them .... personally I\'ve
never heard \"homely\" used to describe a person.

C

#### Cursitor Doom

##### Guest
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 06:06:05 -0700 (PDT), \"pfjw@aol.com\"
<peterwieck33@gmail.com> wrote:

OK - let us discuss the \"British U\" such as in colo u r and so forth. Which has been around for a very long time. But for the purposes of this specious argument, let us agree on 300 years as an arbitrary figure.
a) Each printed U takes up space on paper, ink, space on the printing plate and so forth.
b) That space has an associated cost. Again, being arbitrary, let us agree that each one hundred Us are worth one British penny, then and now.
c) I believe that it would be fair to suggest that at least a billion extra Us were printed per year since 1700.

https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1700?amount=1

That first year would be £417 in 1700 (240 pence to the pound). Over the last 300 years, the average earned interest rate is about 4.5%.
Just for giggles, let us use that same £417 as a periodic deposit for the same 300 years. That is highly conservative as that £417 would be more like £26,271 today.

Care to guess what those Us cost the British and Brit-speak economies over the last 300 years?

\$5,259,278,881.34 And that is only if the first-cost is *as little as * £417 *.

And you dare to criticize American spelling?
Wow! So *that* was how the Americans were able to overtake the British
economically over the course of the 1920s? Astounding!

A

#### Andy Burns

##### Guest
pfjw@aol.com wrote:

> OK - let us discuss the \"British U\" such as in colo u r and so forth.

The only reason you don\'t put U\'s in \"color\", is because you over-use
them in \"nucular\" god knows what you do with all the spare E\'s?

T

#### Trevor Wilson

##### Guest
On 4/08/2020 2:26 pm, Pimpom wrote:
On 8/4/2020 3:17 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 4/08/2020 6:38 am, Mike wrote:
In article <hor86cF5obvU1@mid.individual.net>,
Trevor WilsonÂ  <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

\'Absolutely\' rather than \'yes\' springs to mind.

Oh that is *super* annoying.

The latest trend in avoiding using \"very\" in its correct context

**Don\'t get me started. The term \'very unique\' springs to mind. YIKES!

Then again: I watch \'Escape to the Country\' from British TV. Every time
some nong says: \"Oh, that is very homely\". I just want to scream.

Look up \'homely\' in the dictionary, you stupid poms.

Here in multi-racial multi-cultural India, arranged marriage is the norm
among the majority races (not with my own minority people). I\'m both
amused and aghast to see matrimonial ads in newspapers and magazines
almost invariably describing a prospective bride as \'homely\'.
**YIKES!

Indian English is based on British English but I didn\'t know the Brits
used \'homely\' the same way.
**I\'ve seen hundreds of episodes of Escape to the Country. Only once,
have I heard the correct word: \'Homey\' used. Even from seemly well
educated Poms, the term: \'homely\' is most often used.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

T

#### Trevor Wilson

##### Guest
On 4/08/2020 5:50 pm, Andy Burns wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

Every time some nong says: \"Oh, that is very homely\". I just want to
scream.
Look up \'homely\' in the dictionary, you stupid poms.

That\'s because it\'s a programme made by brits, for brits, and that\'s the
way we use the word, to describe homes.Â  Feel free to export your tv
shows to us and use words the way you use them .... personally I\'ve
never heard \"homely\" used to describe a person.
**Sorry, but I am unable to access the Oxford English Dictionary. I went
for second best:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/homely

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/homey

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

A

#### Andy Burns

##### Guest
Trevor Wilson wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Every time some nong says: \"Oh, that is very homely\". I just want
to scream. Look up \'homely\' in the dictionary, you stupid poms.

That\'s because it\'s a programme made by brits, for brits, and that\'s
the way we use the word, to describe homes.Â  Feel free to export your
tv shows to us and use words the way you use them .... personally I\'ve
never heard \"homely\" used to describe a person.

**Sorry, but I am unable to access the Oxford English Dictionary.
Let me help you out ... British usage of the word is in sense 1 or sense 2a

================================

Etymology: home + -ly suffix compare Middle Dutch heimelÄ«ke, heimelijk

1.

Of or belonging to a household or home. Also: of or belonging to a
person\'s own country or native land. rare after 16th cent.

2.

a. Characteristic or suggestive of a home (esp. a modest one) or of
domestic life; ordinary, everyday; simple, plain, unsophisticated;
rough, rustic. In later use also (chiefly British, of a place or its
atmosphere, etc.): cosy, comfortable.

b. Of a person: of humble background; having a plain or simple nature;
unsophisticated; rustic.

c. Esp. of a person: of plain appearance; unattractive. Now North American.

3.

a. With â to, with. Of a person or a person\'s manner: familiar; friendly;
intimate. rare after 17th cent.

b. Chiefly Scottish. Kind, kindly; courteous. Now rare.

c. Of things: familiar; well-known. Now rare.

P

#### pfjw@aol.com

##### Guest
On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 4:41:10 AM UTC-4, Andy Burns wrote:
pf...@aol.com wrote:

OK - let us discuss the \"British U\" such as in colo u r and so forth.
The only reason you don\'t put U\'s in \"color\", is because you over-use
them in \"nucular\" god knows what you do with all the spare E\'s?
Keep in mind that the Average American:

Does not have a college education, including an Associate Degree (60%).
Does not have a passport (58%).
Speaks one language â badly (74%).
Has never traveled voluntarily more than 200 miles from his/her birthplace (57%).
Has never visited a foreign country, not even Mexico or Canada (71%).
Cannot name the Speaker of the House, even today (82%)
Cannot name the three branches of government (64%)
Cannot read at a college level (83%)
60% of American Households do not buy any book in a year.
Does not believe in Evolution (42% creationism, 32% evolution, 26% no opinion).

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

C

#### Cursitor Doom

##### Guest
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 08:50:25 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Every time some nong says: \"Oh, that is very homely\". I just want to
scream.
Look up \'homely\' in the dictionary, you stupid poms.

That\'s because it\'s a programme made by brits, for brits, and that\'s the
way we use the word, to describe homes. Feel free to export your tv
shows to us and use words the way you use them .... personally I\'ve
never heard \"homely\" used to describe a person.
Homely is used in N. America as a uphamism for ugly. Usually applied
to young girls. In English English it just means cozy and comfortable
and is only applied to residential dwellings.

P

#### pfjw@aol.com

##### Guest
Homely is used in N. America as a uphamism for ugly. Usually applied
to young girls. In English English it just means cozy and comfortable
and is only applied to residential dwellings.
That would be euphemism. Which is also an incorrect use of the word. Homely in the US is the functional equivalent of plain, even ugly. Which is its direct meaning.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/homely

However, a true euphemism would be something like \"lacks prettiness\" or \"she does not present well\" as applied to a young girl.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/euphemism

Funny thing: The average native English speaker recognizes about 20,000 words, and uses about 5,000. College graduates roughly double the recognition number and the use number. This against an estimated 1,022,000 words (including obsolete words, derivatives and jargon) in the English Language, and 171,476 words in current use (OED).

Guys and gals: Words are tools, often weapons. Working with dull blades is dangerous - to the user and others as well.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

J

#### John Robertson

##### Guest
On 2020/08/04 5:19 a.m., pfjw@aol.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 4:41:10 AM UTC-4, Andy Burns wrote:
pf...@aol.com wrote:

OK - let us discuss the \"British U\" such as in colo u r and so forth.
The only reason you don\'t put U\'s in \"color\", is because you over-use
them in \"nucular\" god knows what you do with all the spare E\'s?

Keep in mind that the Average American:

Does not have a college education, including an Associate Degree (60%).
Does not have a passport (58%).
Speaks one language â badly (74%).
Has never traveled voluntarily more than 200 miles from his/her birthplace (57%).
Has never visited a foreign country, not even Mexico or Canada (71%).
Cannot name the Speaker of the House, even today (82%)
Cannot name the three branches of government (64%)
Cannot read at a college level (83%)
60% of American Households do not buy any book in a year.
Does not believe in Evolution (42% creationism, 32% evolution, 26% no opinion).

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
from a survey in 2016 (it appears)

https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/americans-knowledge-of-the-branches-of-government-is-declining/

John :-#)#

C

#### Cursitor Doom

##### Guest
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 06:33:09 -0700 (PDT), \"pfjw@aol.com\"
<peterwieck33@gmail.com> wrote:

Homely is used in N. America as a uphamism for ugly. Usually applied
to young girls. In English English it just means cozy and comfortable
and is only applied to residential dwellings.

That would be euphemism.
That\'s what I typed in! The spell-checker in my Agent newsreader
(created by the American corp, Forte) changed it to \'uphamism\' for
reasons only know to itself.