Re: silly question

[Hal Vaughan <hal@thresholddigital.com>]

On Sunday 06 March 2005 03:06 pm, Hodgins Family wrote:
> Good afternoon!
>
> Die, die, evil thread. Just die.
> Don't give a sigh.
> Don't say good-bye.
> No more last try.
> Just die.
> Sigh!
>
> Rob


Yes.

On the other hand, it's a silly thread.  Let's not go there.

Hal

> On Sat, 2005-03-05 at 16:39 -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 08:54:29PM +1100, Darryl Luff wrote:
> > > Paul E Condon wrote:
> > > >On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 05:26:47AM +0000, Pollywog wrote:
> > > >>On Friday 04 March 2005 04:48 am, Blake Swadling wrote:
> > > >>>next you'll be telling us that it is "aluminum" ... check the
> > > >>> periodic table ppl. there is a second letter 'i' in there somewhere
> > > >>>
> > > >>>if you re going to nit pick about pronunciation you should be a
> > > >>> little more careful.
> > > >>
> > > >>I confess I have never seen that particular version of the periodic
> > > >>table, but I agree with most of what you said.
> > > >>
> > > >>8)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>As I understand it, the Aluminum Corporation of America deliberately
> > > >>misspelled
> > > >>the name of the metal in its corporate name. Americans accepted the
> > > >> new spelling
> > > >>as a matter of national pride (of which we have a great deal). There
> > > >> was also
> > > >>some nonsense about it being easier to pronounce, I think.
> > >
> > > Sort of, but if the link below is right aluminum came first, until a
> > > union of chemists in the 1800's changed it to aluminium to match up
> > > with all the other -ium element names. Then in the early 1900's America
> > > decided to change back to Aluminum. The company started off as
> > > Pittsburgh Aluminium Company and renamed itself to Aluminum Company of
> > > America in 1907.
> > >
> > > Maybe we should go back to alumen or alumine!
> > >
> > > http://www.world-aluminium.org/history/language.html
> >
> > And the whole world has standardized on the metric system, except, of
> > course, the USA. Ane we were first! Or what?
> >
> > My point, which I should have stated more clearly, is that there is no
> > single way of deciding these issues. Usually, one side wins because
> > all the other sides just get tired and stop fighting. In America (USA),
> > we are largely unaware of the existing diversity of opinion on many
> > issues. We imagine that other ways are simply wierd and wrong.
> >
> > --
> > Paul E Condon
> > pecondon@mesanetworks.net