XPost: comp.mobile.android
From: this@ddress.is.invalid
nospam wrote:
> In article , Frank Slootweg
> wrote:
[...]
> > > > And then there's tlvp's argument that only English-speaking countries
> > > > have the *word* "pound". As mentioned, the Brits do NOT use "pound"
when
> > > > referring to the '#' symbol.
> > >
> > > that leaves the rest of the *world*.
> >
> > You're missing the point. As tlvp explained, the countries where
> > English isn't the native/common/ language, (obviously) do not
> > *have* the word "pound", so they *cannot*/*will not* use the word
> > "pound" when referring to the '#' symbol.
> >
> > So that leaves only the English-speaking countries - other than the
> > Brits -, NOT "the rest of the *world*".
>
> non-english speaking countries will have an english word for it, as
> they do for many other things.
*If* they use an English word for the '#' symbol, it will be - as ALL
the non-US respondent have *told* you - most likely be "hash" and less
likely "number [sign]", but they will NOT say "pound".
> > So it would be interesting to hear from Australians, Canadians, etc..
>
> that alone makes it *not* us-centric, your favourite argument.
Look braniac, it would only make it not US-centric, IF they
(Australians, Canadians, etc.) would say that they use "pound" when
referring to the '#' symbol. However, sofar *not a single* person from
an English-speaking non-US country has said so! So you're totally on
your own with your warped opinion(s).
Bottom line: However much you stamp your tiny feet, jump up and down,
throw tantrums, etc., saying "pound" when referring to the '#' symbol in
a telephony context, IS A US-CENTRIC THING (as I said from the get go)!
QED.
HTH. HAND. EOD. NK.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
