BMW 'Goodwill'

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> PractiCe.
>
> You have been reading American-dominated newsgroups for too long...
>
> <grin>
> DAS


Actually, a search for the word "practise" revealed the following:

prac·tise
v. & n. Chiefly British

Variant of practice.

(Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language)

So, the Americans think practiSe is British.

:-)

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> PractiCe.
>
> You have been reading American-dominated newsgroups for too long...
>
> <grin>
> DAS

What the heck does that mean? Practice is spelled the same way in
America. Or are you just insinuating that Americans can't spell properly?

-Fred W

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> What is non-evidential proof?
>
> :-)
> DAS

http://mattweiner.net/papers/dissertation/Chapter2.doc

-Fred W

Somebody wrote:
> "Malt_Hound" > wrote in message
> news >
>>Somebody wrote:
>>
>>>"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>> Somebody > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Over here, Hyundai is offering 10 year warranties now. Does that mean
>>>>>their engineering is that much superior to what it was 3 years ago? Of
>>>>>course not. It's a marketing tool, that is more important in the lower
>>>>>end, as you point out.
>>>>
>>>>Is the warranty transferrable? And has the car got to be serviced by
>>>>dealers?
>>>>
>>>>The likelihood of many buying a new Hyundai and keeping it for 10 years
>
> is
>
>>>>small, as is it being dealer serviced. So it's good publicity for a rare
>>>>occurrence in practice.
>>>
>>>
>>>A new car does not *ever* need to to be serviced by the dealer except
>
> for
>
>>>warranty work, but, you must have proof of service by another mechanic
>>>according to the maintenance schedule. The requirement for all service
>
> to
>
>>>be at the dealer is an urban myth designed to generate revenue for
>
> dealers.
>
>>>Home changing your oil will invalidate your warranty though.
>>
>>No, actually it won't, so long as you have evidential proof that the
>>work was done and at what date / mileage. Also, any warranty claims not
>>directly related to engine lubrication the oil change question would be
>>moot...
>
>
> Right, it doesn't invalidate your entire warranty if you don't change your
> oil, just lubrication-related items. Similarly for other aspects of regular
> maintenance.
>
> But what sort of proof can you give that you changed the oil yourself?
> Reciepts and a log book prove that you bought the supplies and wrote
> something down.

That is exactly the sort of evidence that I was speaking of. If you
have the receipts and have kept a log of your service that should suffice.

Contrast that with the "normal" evidence of service. A booklet with a
bunch of service activities stamped in it. I would think that would be
easy enough to forge too, given enough financial motivation.

-Fred W

Somebody wrote:
> "JimV" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Somebody wrote:
>>
>>>"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>> Somebody > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Over here, Hyundai is offering 10 year warranties now. Does that mean
>>>>>their engineering is that much superior to what it was 3 years ago? Of
>>>>>course not. It's a marketing tool, that is more important in the lower
>>>>>end, as you point out.
>>>>
>>>>Is the warranty transferrable? And has the car got to be serviced by
>>>>dealers?
>>>>
>>>>The likelihood of many buying a new Hyundai and keeping it for 10 years
>
> is
>
>>>>small, as is it being dealer serviced. So it's good publicity for a rare
>>>>occurrence in practice.
>>>
>>>
>>>A new car does not *ever* need to to be serviced by the dealer except
>
> for
>
>>>warranty work, but, you must have proof of service by another mechanic
>>>according to the maintenance schedule. The requirement for all service
>
> to
>
>>>be at the dealer is an urban myth designed to generate revenue for
>
> dealers.
>
>>>Home changing your oil will invalidate your warranty though.
>>>
>>>-Russ.
>>
>>This is not true either. The burdon of proof is on the manufacturer to
>>prove that the lack of, or improper, maintenance damaged the part/system
>>in question. Changing your own oil (or anything else) does not void your
>>warranty.
>
>
> Probably in a court if you had your reciepts and records they would take it,
> courts tend to side with the little guy if they can. But if you ended up
> going that far, you're going to be without a car for months while it drags
> out.
>
> If you have a third party warranty like Lubrico it specifically states that
> home oil changes invalidate your warranty.
>
> -Russ.
>
>

Never heard of Lubrico, but it sure sounds like the want your oil change
business... ;-)

-Fred W

Well, what do you expect from an American dictionary...

In English we spell the noun with a c and the verb with an s. There are
other such examples.

I didn't say the Brit English (as Americans might say) way is more
sensible....

Dave Plowman lives in London (England, that is, not Canada, USA or even
Germany).

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Peter Bozz" > wrote in message
...
[...]
>
> Actually, a search for the word "practise" revealed the following:
>
> prac·tise
> v. & n. Chiefly British
>
> Variant of practice.
>
> (Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language)
>
> So, the Americans think practiSe is British.
>
> :-)

LoL. I don't recollect seeing an American ever write it with a C.

A look at Merriam-Webster online shows confusion, in that practice appears
to be shown shown with either spelling for any usage. A bot like Peter
Bozz's finding in the American Heritage Dictionary.

However, the Oxford makes the correct way clear:
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/practice?view=uk

With C: noun in Brit English.
With S: verb in Brit, noun and verb in American.

Now, whether Americans can spell properly? That I can't answer...probably
no more or less than anybody else in the English-speaking world. But they
do spell some things differently, uniquely so because the rest of them
(South Africa, AU, NZ etc) follow UK. Canada is supposed to, too, but
obviously cannot escape the pervasive influence of its southern neighbour,
and so tends to follow US norms.

And if you are in business in CA it is even harder e.g. with measurements.
Although CA is metric anything supplied to the US has to be
Imperial/American standard, so people get wrapped up in this and forget
metres and litres...

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Malt_Hound" > wrote in message
...
[...]

> What the heck does that mean? Practice is spelled the same way in
> America. Or are you just insinuating that Americans can't spell properly?
>
> -Fred W

The beginning of the tract says it. It's not proof but testimony, which may
be accepted/believed, or not. It does not say it is proof, as far as I can
see.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Malt_Hound" > wrote in message
...
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>> What is non-evidential proof?
>>
>> :-)
>> DAS
>
> http://mattweiner.net/papers/dissertation/Chapter2.doc
>
> -Fred W

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> LoL. I don't recollect seeing an American ever write it with a C.
>
> A look at Merriam-Webster online shows confusion, in that practice appears
> to be shown shown with either spelling for any usage. A bot like Peter
> Bozz's finding in the American Heritage Dictionary.
>
> However, the Oxford makes the correct way clear:
> http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/practice?view=uk
>
> With C: noun in Brit English.
> With S: verb in Brit, noun and verb in American.
>
> Now, whether Americans can spell properly? That I can't answer...probably
> no more or less than anybody else in the English-speaking world. But they
> do spell some things differently, uniquely so because the rest of them
> (South Africa, AU, NZ etc) follow UK. Canada is supposed to, too, but
> obviously cannot escape the pervasive influence of its southern neighbour,
> and so tends to follow US norms.
>
> And if you are in business in CA it is even harder e.g. with measurements.
> Although CA is metric anything supplied to the US has to be
> Imperial/American standard, so people get wrapped up in this and forget
> metres and litres...

And I would guess, based partly on the spelling of your last sentence,
that "Brittish english" is heavily influenced by you neighbors across
the creek to your right. The words pronounced 'mE-t&r and 'lE-t&r
are spelled (and pronounced as they appear) metre and litre in French.

-Fred W

Oh dear, oh dear, oh DEAR.


British English... one "t" in the first word, capital at the beginning of
the
second....:-)

I don't understand what you mean given that English is an evolution of
(Norman) French. They are probably more influenced by English than vice
versa. Their Academie Francaise is frantically trying to prevent the use of
English words.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/litre?view=uk


(US liter)

. noun a metric unit of capacity, formerly the volume of one kilogram of
water under standard conditions, now equal to 1,000 cubic centimetres (about
1.75 pints).

- DERIVATIVES litreage noun.

- ORIGIN French, from Greek litra, a Sicilian monetary unit


Just for fun try "liter" in Merriam-Websters and then click on the
Britannica link. Funny how the spelling changes to "litre". Britannica
might be American-owned but it has an English (British English to you)
heritage.

A meter is a device that measures something. You know the sort of thing?
Thermometer. Light meter.

Remember what I said. Americans spell some words in a unique fashion.

You'll probably get the hang of it eventually.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---


"Malt_Hound" > wrote in message
...

[...]
>
> And I would guess, based partly on the spelling of your last sentence,
> that "Brittish english" is heavily influenced by you neighbors across the
> creek to your right. The words pronounced 'mE-t&r and 'lE-t&r
> are spelled (and pronounced as they appear) metre and litre in French.
>
> -Fred W