LED flashlight instructions

[Richard Barth]

At 02:40 PM 9/10/2013, Phil wrote:
>Dear André
>
>Base on recent and local experiencings, think me 
>that it written by genuine englishman person.
>
>Much laughings and amusement is it being haved.
>
>Phil M1GWZ

In this past Sunday's Washington Post Magazine 
(article available 
here:http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/gene-weingarten-weighing-in-on-literally-but-figuratively-of-course/2013/09/03/47c1764c-0685-11e3-88d6-d5795fab4637_story.html 
) Gene Weingarten takes on similar, er, 
"eccentricities" in the use of the English 
language, iincluding such things as the alleged 
interchangeability of the words "literally" and 
"virtually". He further says "the Oxford English 
Dictionary ­ arbiter of all things English ­ has 
finally, inevitably, sanctioned the use of 
“literally” to mean its precise opposite. It is a 
hapless surrender to, figuratively, eons of careless misuse."

It's not only happening in Blimey, Phil.  We have the same problem.

I'm a semi-regular listener to podcasts from 
Sophos Security, called Chet Chat. They're 
presented by a Canadian and an Australian, who 
have distinct differences when dealing with the 
word "router". The Aussie pronounces it "rooter", 
since its purpose is to route bits around the 
network. The Canadian, following North American practice,
pronounces it "rowter". I guess that type scares 
the bits away rather than delivering them to the 
computers they've been sent to. This follows hard on the heels of the little
man in my GPS, who advises me to "turn right on rowt 29" or whatever.

"Route" and "rout" have almost ceased to be separate words.

Dick