On Saturday, 20 January 2018 11:29:25 UTC, tim... wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2018 11:08, Tim Streater wrote:
8


We shouldn't be giving currency to these non-words, even if lazy ****s
like T i m think they are able to produce references for them.


You shouldn't be posting here then as computers, usenet, etc. don't exist.

I remember when I first started my interest in computing I was told by
school teachers that the word "program" didn't exist (in UK English)

Now, if you you told someone that, they would look at you like you had
claimed to have just arrived from Mars.

tim

The word 'Computer' is from the 1640s.


NT

On 20/01/2018 11:51, wrote:
On Saturday, 20 January 2018 11:29:25 UTC, tim... wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2018 11:08, Tim Streater wrote:
8


We shouldn't be giving currency to these non-words, even if lazy ****s
like T i m think they are able to produce references for them.


You shouldn't be posting here then as computers, usenet, etc. don't exist.

I remember when I first started my interest in computing I was told by
school teachers that the word "program" didn't exist (in UK English)

Now, if you you told someone that, they would look at you like you had
claimed to have just arrived from Mars.

tim

The word 'Computer' is from the 1640s.

Except its association with calculating 'machine' comes much later, late
19th Century?

Up to then, anyone able to add up could be called a 'computer'.

On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 11:38:50 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

On 20/01/2018 11:08, Tim Streater wrote:
8


We shouldn't be giving currency to these non-words, even if lazy ****s
like T i m think they are able to produce references for them.


You shouldn't be posting here then as computers, usenet, etc. don't exist.

I wonder how you are going to describe say TV using words from say 1600
as you don't want any new words?

I think we don't need any silly, lazy and ignorant new words where there
are perfectly good ones already.

In general, I agree. However, not all of us are educated to the same
level or are interested (prioritisation of the spirit of the content
over anal attention to word usage) able (word blindness / dyslexia /
eyesight) and anyone with a reasonable EQ would know and accept that
unsaid. Not an attribute present with Mr Streater unfortunately with
his arrogant and pretentious attitude. Luckily for him, that all fits
in well with his 'Fine arts' degree (obtained before Media Studies was
an option for him). ;-)

Ironic he has so much to say about me but without the balls to say any
of it directly to me?

I agree it is a losing battle; but
if it amuses me to fight a rearguard action of gratuitous rudeness and
sarcasm against them then I shall continue to do so.

Thank you. ;-)

The *issue* was exactly that in this instance with someone I've never
spoken to (using that alias anyway) thinks he has the complete freedom
to comment on my use of a word in a sarcastic / patronising way that
would likely earned him a punch in the mouth, had he done so under
such circumstances face to face. Note how upset he got when I dared to
suggest his input may not be wholly correct. Left brainers do give
themselves away so easily. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 11:49:50 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

snip

The best thing about using modern words is that it winds the left
brained dinosaurs and self appointed spelling / grammar cops up (in a
d-i-y group ffs)!


Try re-reading Brave New World and 1984 and you might see what we are
getting at.

And that highlights another 'facet' in all this Roger. I've never read
either and so couldn't 're-read' (but thank's for the consideration
that I might g) and would probably guaranteed I'm unlikely to ever
do so. The reason, is I've only read a few books in my life because I
don't find the process 'entertaining' or easy.

'Entertaining' because I'd rather do many other things for my
'entertainment' and the 'easy' bit is a combination of finding it
difficult to focus on something that doesn't entertain or stimulate
and part of that is down to my Tinnitus (and now eyesight).

So, I'm constantly asking the Mrs how to spell stuff, because unlike
me she has always loved reading and so is exposed to the written word
more.

Victorian Streater would judge that as me being 'lazy', whereas I see
it as me having the right to choose WTF I want to do. ;-)

So, as far as being 'bothered' to hunt down potential / alternative /
'Streater Approved' words and ruin whatever flow I had at the time, I
just do my best knowing that ant right minded person reading it for
the right reason would find it perfectly comprehendible g. The
others, well, they know where they can go. ;-)

Now, had the mistake been highlighted positively then of course I
would explore and accept it in the manor it was given ... but with no
guarantees I wouldn't use the same / less_than_perfect word the next
time (memory / interest / priority etc). ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Saturday, 20 January 2018 11:55:55 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 20/01/2018 11:51, tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 20 January 2018 11:29:25 UTC, tim... wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2018 11:08, Tim Streater wrote:
8


We shouldn't be giving currency to these non-words, even if lazy ****s
like T i m think they are able to produce references for them.


You shouldn't be posting here then as computers, usenet, etc. don't exist.

I remember when I first started my interest in computing I was told by
school teachers that the word "program" didn't exist (in UK English)

Now, if you you told someone that, they would look at you like you had
claimed to have just arrived from Mars.

tim

The word 'Computer' is from the 1640s.

Except its association with calculating 'machine' comes much later, late
19th Century?

Up to then, anyone able to add up could be called a 'computer'.

People were still called computers in the 1950s.


NT

On Saturday, 20 January 2018 12:22:46 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 11:49:50 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

snip

The best thing about using modern words is that it winds the left
brained dinosaurs and self appointed spelling / grammar cops up (in a
d-i-y group ffs)!


Try re-reading Brave New World and 1984 and you might see what we are
getting at.

And that highlights another 'facet' in all this Roger. I've never read
either and so couldn't 're-read' (but thank's for the consideration
that I might g) and would probably guaranteed I'm unlikely to ever
do so. The reason, is I've only read a few books in my life because I
don't find the process 'entertaining' or easy.

'Entertaining' because I'd rather do many other things for my
'entertainment' and the 'easy' bit is a combination of finding it
difficult to focus on something that doesn't entertain or stimulate
and part of that is down to my Tinnitus (and now eyesight).

So, I'm constantly asking the Mrs how to spell stuff, because unlike
me she has always loved reading and so is exposed to the written word
more.

Victorian Streater would judge that as me being 'lazy', whereas I see
it as me having the right to choose WTF I want to do. ;-)

So, as far as being 'bothered' to hunt down potential / alternative /
'Streater Approved' words and ruin whatever flow I had at the time, I
just do my best knowing that ant right minded person reading it for
the right reason would find it perfectly comprehendible g. The
others, well, they know where they can go. ;-)

Now, had the mistake been highlighted positively then of course I
would explore and accept it in the manor it was given ... but with no
guarantees I wouldn't use the same / less_than_perfect word the next
time (memory / interest / priority etc). ;-(

Cheers, T i m

If someone can't comprehend the conjoining of the word comprehend with the standard ending -ible then they've really got a problem. And that would be all English teachers. It's the sort of attitude up with which I can not put.


NT

On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 05:21:51 -0800 (PST), wrote:

snip

If someone can't comprehend the conjoining of the word comprehend with the standard ending -ible then they've really got a problem.

Quite.

And that would be all English teachers.

Well, that is 'their thing' eh?

It's the sort of attitude up with which I can not put.

Hehe.

Cheers, T i m

On Saturday, 20 January 2018 13:35:06 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 05:21:51 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:

snip

If someone can't comprehend the conjoining of the word comprehend with the standard ending -ible then they've really got a problem.

Quite.

And that would be all English teachers.

Well, that is 'their thing' eh?

yeah but it's baseless. We're all familiar with the usual endings and prefixes, and able to use and understand them. What's their problem? They're problemous & pointlessful.


It's the sort of attitude up with which I can not put.

Hehe.

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 05:43:38 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, 20 January 2018 13:35:06 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 05:21:51 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:

snip

If someone can't comprehend the conjoining of the word comprehend with the standard ending -ible then they've really got a problem.

Quite.

And that would be all English teachers.

Well, that is 'their thing' eh?

yeah but it's baseless.

Well, I can see some mileage to it but not at the cost of say context
or a writers enthusiasm.

We're all familiar with the usual endings and prefixes, and able to use and understand them.

'We' are, I'm not sure 'they' are. ;-)

What's their problem? They're problemous & pointlessful.

They are also arrogant (unintentionally because they are -) left
brainers, so believe the world should only be as they say / believe it
should.

Luckily, we don't always let them have it their own way and that way
the world becomes an interesting place (all be it frustrating and
confusing to them). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
wrote:
yeah but it's baseless. We're all familiar with the usual endings and
prefixes, and able to use and understand them. What's their problem?
They're problemous & pointlessful.

Seems to be Brexiteers who moan about such things. It's called taking back
control. You have been warned.

--
*Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 14:16:39 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
yeah but it's baseless. We're all familiar with the usual endings and
prefixes, and able to use and understand them. What's their problem?
They're problemous & pointlessful.

Seems to be Brexiteers who moan about such things. It's called taking back
control. You have been warned.

Hmmm, there does seem to be some strong correlation eh ... weg

I'm still waiting for one of them to write out their list of things
they voted for and that they *know* they are going at actually get?

I mean, they must be pretty convinced because they voted for it
(whatever 'it' turns out to be of course). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 20/01/18 10:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

I wonder if comprehendible is in the same state of development as
'irregardless'? In other words, it is so widely used by relatively new,
or ex-colonial, English speakers who do not know the word
'comprehensible' that it is in at least the New World dictionaries, but
it still sounds wrong to more widely read English speakers.

'irregardless' is not a word.

Neither is 'comprehendible';

Apparently it goes back to te16th centurey

but both are in recent editions of
American dictionaries. 'Inspirational' is not a word either, but has
become nearly universal even in the UK.





--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2018 11:08, Tim Streater wrote:
8


We shouldn't be giving currency to these non-words, even if lazy ****s
like T i m think they are able to produce references for them.


You shouldn't be posting here then as computers, usenet, etc. don't
exist.

I remember when I first started my interest in computing I was told by
school teachers that the word "program" didn't exist (in UK English)

Now, if you you told someone that, they would look at you like you had
claimed to have just arrived from Mars.


So? If you didn't know the latest plot line in Eastenders they would
also look at you as though you were an alien being. Your point is?

words change

tim

wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 20 January 2018 11:29:25 UTC, tim... wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2018 11:08, Tim Streater wrote:
8


We shouldn't be giving currency to these non-words, even if lazy ****s
like T i m think they are able to produce references for them.


You shouldn't be posting here then as computers, usenet, etc. don't
exist.

I remember when I first started my interest in computing I was told by
school teachers that the word "program" didn't exist (in UK English)

Now, if you you told someone that, they would look at you like you had
claimed to have just arrived from Mars.

tim

The word 'Computer' is from the 1640s.

as (says 17th Cent) is the word programME

tim




NT

T i m wrote:

snip

Cheers, T i m

TTFN

--
Lollipop? What lollipop?

T i m wrote:

On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 11:38:50 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

On 20/01/2018 11:08, Tim Streater wrote:
8


We shouldn't be giving currency to these non-words, even if lazy ****s
like T i m think they are able to produce references for them.


You shouldn't be posting here then as computers, usenet, etc. don't exist.

I wonder how you are going to describe say TV using words from say 1600
as you don't want any new words?

I think we don't need any silly, lazy and ignorant new words where there
are perfectly good ones already.

In general, I agree. However, not all of us are educated to the same
level or are interested (prioritisation of the spirit of the content
over anal attention to word usage) able (word blindness / dyslexia /
eyesight) and anyone with a reasonable EQ would know and accept that
unsaid. Not an attribute present with Mr Streater unfortunately with
his arrogant and pretentious attitude. Luckily for him, that all fits
in well with his 'Fine arts' degree (obtained before Media Studies was
an option for him). ;-)

Ironic he has so much to say about me but without the balls to say any
of it directly to me?

I agree it is a losing battle; but
if it amuses me to fight a rearguard action of gratuitous rudeness and
sarcasm against them then I shall continue to do so.

Thank you. ;-)

The *issue* was exactly that in this instance with someone I've never
spoken to (using that alias anyway) thinks he has the complete freedom
to comment on my use of a word in a sarcastic / patronising way that
would likely earned him a punch in the mouth, had he done so under
such circumstances face to face. Note how upset he got when I dared to
suggest his input may not be wholly correct. Left brainers do give
themselves away so easily. ;-(

Cheers, T i m


You seem a little upset, T i m , I do hope I haven't given offence.

--
No lollipop.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
yeah but it's baseless. We're all familiar with the usual endings and
prefixes, and able to use and understand them. What's their problem?
They're problemous & pointlessful.


Seems to be Brexiteers who moan about such things. It's called taking back
control. You have been warned.


I'm intrigued: how do you arrive at that conclusion?

--
Lollipop? What lollipop?

On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 20:28:28 +0000, lid (Orvat
Pehzoyl) wrote:

snip

The *issue* was exactly that in this instance with someone I've never
spoken to (using that alias anyway) thinks he has the complete freedom
to comment on my use of a word in a sarcastic / patronising way that
would likely earned him a punch in the mouth, had he done so under
such circumstances face to face. Note how upset he got when I dared to
suggest his input may not be wholly correct. Left brainers do give
themselves away so easily. ;-(


You seem a little upset, T i m ,

I do?

I do hope I haven't given offence.

Hey, this is Usenet, so it would take a lot more than you not knowing
how you should interact with strangers to upset or offend me.

If you had to say anything, a simple 'did you mean ...' would have
been sufficient, I didn't need to comments and patronising.

I'll admit I didn't use the best word but I defend the fact that it
was a valid word as such and that you had no issues understanding my
intended meaning by me using it ... especially considering this is a
d-i-y group, not an English class. ;-)

You made a mistake, you admit it and we are good. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:20:11 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

T i m wrote:

In general, I agree. However, not all of us are educated to the same
level or are interested (prioritisation of the spirit of the content
over anal attention to word usage) able (word blindness / dyslexia /
eyesight) and anyone with a reasonable EQ would know and accept that
unsaid. Not an attribute present with Mr Streater unfortunately with
his arrogant and pretentious attitude. Luckily for him, that all fits
in well with his 'Fine arts' degree (obtained before Media Studies was
an option for him). ;-)

Gosh, I have a 'Fine Arts' degree, do I (not to be confused with a Fine
Arts degree)? Who knew?

Oh, do degrees from the E&M expire after time then?

Strange, and there was me thinking that Physics is a science subject.

Not getting the paint over the lines could be considered 'a science'
by some? ;-)

But well done you, whatever you have. I bet it looks lovely on the
fridge. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 20/01/18 20:28, Orvat Pehzoyl wrote:
You seem a little upset, T i m , I do hope I haven't given offence.

I do hope you have...


--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

T i m wrote:

On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 20:28:28 +0000, lid (Orvat
Pehzoyl) wrote:

snip

The *issue* was exactly that in this instance with someone I've never
spoken to (using that alias anyway) thinks he has the complete freedom
to comment on my use of a word in a sarcastic / patronising way that
would likely earned him a punch in the mouth, had he done so under
such circumstances face to face. Note how upset he got when I dared to
suggest his input may not be wholly correct. Left brainers do give
themselves away so easily. ;-(


You seem a little upset, T i m ,


I do?


I do hope I haven't given offence.


Hey, this is Usenet, so it would take a lot more than you not knowing
how you should interact with strangers to upset or offend me.

If you had to say anything, a simple 'did you mean ...' would have
been sufficient, I didn't need to comments and patronising.

I'll admit I didn't use the best word but I defend the fact that it
was a valid word as such and that you had no issues understanding my
intended meaning by me using it ... especially considering this is a
d-i-y group, not an English class. ;-)

You made a mistake, you admit it and we are good. ;-)

Cheers, T i m


You misunderstand: I certainly don't admit to making a mistake
and how we stand in our interpersonal relationship is a matter
for future consideration.

Before you pick me upon the point: some may consider the phrase
"interpersonal relationship" to be tautological; I prefer to think
of it as providing clarity.

Regarding your assertion that this is a DIY group: I seem to
have been misled; to judge by most of the content in here it's
a place for off-topic posting, political tub-thumping, preening
and display of sundry prejudices.

--
Red lollipop.

On 21/01/18 13:34, Orvat Pehzoyl wrote:

Regarding your assertion that this is a DIY group: I seem to
have been misled; to judge by most of the content in here it's
a place for off-topic posting, political tub-thumping, preening
and display of sundry prejudices.


Yes, but its all D-I-Y prejudice and bigotry. No store-bought stuff.

Well apart from remoaners and climate change adherents, that is... :-)





--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 11:13:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 20/01/18 20:28, Orvat Pehzoyl wrote:
You seem a little upset, T i m , I do hope I haven't given offence.

I do hope you have...

Of course you do as are the *only* hopes and aspirations of a sad,
lonely old man. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
Orvat Pehzoyl wrote:
Regarding your assertion that this is a DIY group: I seem to
have been misled; to judge by most of the content in here it's
a place for off-topic posting, political tub-thumping, preening
and display of sundry prejudices.

And silly names. Mustn't forget those.

--
*It ain't the size, it's... er... no, it IS ..the size.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Orvat Pehzoyl wrote:
Regarding your assertion that this is a DIY group: I seem to
have been misled; to judge by most of the content in here it's
a place for off-topic posting, political tub-thumping, preening
and display of sundry prejudices.

And silly names. Mustn't forget those.

Don't be rotten.

--
Lollipop? What lollipop?

On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 13:34:56 +0000, lid (Orvat
Pehzoyl) wrote:

snip

You misunderstand:

You misunderstand the language.

I certainly don't admit to making a mistake

I never said you did. I suggested that *if* you did we would be good.
Because you don't (in spite of the factual evidence that you are wrong
and on all levels), you have said all I need to hear (thanks). [1]

and how we stand in our interpersonal relationship is a matter
for future consideration.

For you maybe. For me, it is already decided.

Before you pick me upon the point: some may consider the phrase
"interpersonal relationship" to be tautological; I prefer to think
of it as providing clarity.

Ok?

Regarding your assertion that this is a DIY group:

It's not 'my assertion', it's a statement of fact mate.

snip

Have a good life though. 'Who loves ya baby' ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[1] You may or may not ever realise that and why you were wrong and
I'll not hold that limitation against you. Life is too short for it to
matter to either of us (where us = me and whatever alias you happen to
be using at the time).

On Friday, 19 January 2018 20:47:23 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/01/2018 11:00, whisky-dave wrote:
8

There are some occupations where the gender pay gap is the other way
round such as in

In the sex industry women get paid more.


Don't base what you can charge on your limited knowledge.
Its down to supply and demand and few demand you.

I wasn't and what makes you think my knowledge is limited ?

On Friday, 19 January 2018 22:23:10 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 03:00:38 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 18 January 2018 18:30:35 UTC, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 17:47:30 +0000, tim... wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...
Bit long but interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcj...ature=youtu.be

the gender pay gap (the average salary paid to women against the
average salary paid to men)

is caused because some women leave employment or take a long career
beak to look after a family

The only solution to that is to encourage an equal number of men to
leave employment/take a long career break to look after the family

nothing else works (or is a fair solution)

There are some occupations where the gender pay gap is the other way
round such as in

In the sex industry women get paid more.

And as wet nurses. Men rarely do that...

Wet nurses aren't included in the sex industry statistics.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
what makes you think my knowledge is limited ?

Experience of your other posts? ;-)

--
*I wish the buck stopped here. I could use a few.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 02:53:11 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 19 January 2018 22:23:10 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 03:00:38 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 18 January 2018 18:30:35 UTC, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 17:47:30 +0000, tim... wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...
Bit long but interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcj...ature=youtu.be

the gender pay gap (the average salary paid to women against the
average salary paid to men)

is caused because some women leave employment or take a long
career beak to look after a family

The only solution to that is to encourage an equal number of men
to leave employment/take a long career break to look after the
family

nothing else works (or is a fair solution)

There are some occupations where the gender pay gap is the other
way
round such as in

In the sex industry women get paid more.

And as wet nurses. Men rarely do that...

Wet nurses aren't included in the sex industry statistics.

Missed the point once again.

Although some of them probably are...

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Monday, 22 January 2018 11:26:45 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 02:53:11 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 19 January 2018 22:23:10 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 03:00:38 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 18 January 2018 18:30:35 UTC, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 17:47:30 +0000, tim... wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...
Bit long but interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcj...ature=youtu.be

the gender pay gap (the average salary paid to women against the
average salary paid to men)

is caused because some women leave employment or take a long
career beak to look after a family

The only solution to that is to encourage an equal number of men
to leave employment/take a long career break to look after the
family

nothing else works (or is a fair solution)

There are some occupations where the gender pay gap is the other
way
round such as in

In the sex industry women get paid more.

And as wet nurses. Men rarely do that...

Wet nurses aren't included in the sex industry statistics.

Missed the point once again.

yuo had a point ?


Although some of them probably are...

Quite unlikely.

On Monday, 22 January 2018 11:03:48 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
what makes you think my knowledge is limited ?

Experience of your other posts? ;-)

R-U-experienced.



--
*I wish the buck stopped here. I could use a few.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 20/01/2018 11:55, Fredxx wrote:
The word 'Computer' is from the 1640s.

Except its association with calculating 'machine' comes much later, late
19th Century?

Up to then, anyone able to add up could be called a 'computer'

Isn't that a computor?
Mind in the 1640s any spelling was OK. Just ask Will Shaksper.

Andy