RE: [Bug-gnubg] documentation: checker vs. chequer

[Albert Silver]

I guess that leaves me as an isolated American.... I don't prefer
choices such as cheQUer because they are 'unique', as it opens a whole
ugly can of worms. If one wants unique, why not kube, dubble, etc.? No
matter, I know I'm outvoted here; just giving my opinion.

                                                Albert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:bug-gnubg-
> address@hidden On Behalf Of Holger
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 9:00 AM
> To: Ian Shaw; Alef Rosenbaum; address@hidden
> Subject: RE: [Bug-gnubg] documentation: checker vs. chequer
> 
> At 09:08 16.06.2003 +0100, Ian Shaw wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alef Rosenbaum
> > > Sent: 14 June 2003 17:45
> > > In the FAQ I've changed it all to "checker", but the menus and
options
> > > within gnubg itself will need changing.
> >
> >Awk! Cough! Splutter!
> >
> >Is it only me trying to maintain my own rich cultural heritage and
> >resist the creeping Americanisation of all life? One of the things I
> >love about gnubg is the spelling of chequer. Mind you, since many of
you
> >aren't native English speakers, perhaps you don't care whether you
are
> >Americanised or Anglicized ;)
> 
> While I don't set a too high value on chequer in particular, I prefer
the
> British English, too.
> 
> Regards,
> 
>          Holger
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnubg mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg