Both "Mr" and "M'r" would be a rational way of ... but "Mr." can't claim the same defence of rationality. I think this is a misuse of 'rational', much as it is a misuse of 'logical' to speak of

No preview available.

Thanks Ruslana! I'm downloading Adobe Flash Player. I hope it'll work after this.

Christopher Johnson wrote (in a response to Bob Lieblich re "quotation marks" v "inverted commas"): I'm not American, Bob. I'm British, so I don't have ... "them" inverted commas simply because of the font

Christopher Johnson wrote (in a response to Bob Lieblich re "quotation marks" v "inverted commas"): I'm not American, Bob. I'm British, so I don't have to call "them" what you call "them", and

If you go to the AUE materials, CJ, and search ... I'd say that's about as good as you're gonna get. Thanks, Bob. That was actually quite helpful. For a change. BTW, Americans call them "quotation marks." I dislike calling

No, not really. The American term for ... "inverted commas," when applied to most fonts, is literally incorrect. Which is why I often, most often I think, in my British written English use the expression 'quotation marks' unless

... } I'm not American, Bob. I'm British, so I don't have to call } "them" what you call "them", You're in America, right? Nobody blames you for being British, but it's irrelevant. } and you don't have

I'm not American, Bob. I'm British, Really. I had no idea. I honestly have forgotten, if I ever knew, if it's true. (So many posters, so little time) so I don't have to call "them" what you call "them", and you

I'm not American, Bob. I'm British, so I don't have to call "them" what you call "them", and you don't have to call "them" what I call "them". I'm certainly not going to stop calling