I was working today and the woman kept saying "line" as in, "You were in line at the grocery store". I thought maybe it was just her but then the witness said it too. They also used the phrase "line up".

I was under the impression that people in the UK say "queue" at all times in these circumstances and actively mock people (generally Americans) who say "line".

So either "line" has taken hold in the UK or Scotland has different rules.

If it's the case that "line" has taken hold in the UK, it would be an interesting irony because "queue" has taken hold in the US, albeit they typically use it incorrectly (i.e. the redundant phrase "queue line").

If it's that people in Scotland uses different words than people in England, it's another interesting example. I've noted that people in Scotland will say "what?" when they don't understand somebody and no discourtesy is intended. But in England, that's very much frowned upon. As my lady friend chastised me, "We say pardon."

I tried to have a discussion with my lady friend about the etymology of English in England and the US and the historical and class-based changes but she wasn't having it. She's not really the type for intellectual debate.

Speaking of etymology, years ago I left a brilliant message on the Guardian website under some article destroying English people and I used the word "entymology" instead of "etymology". Everything else in my post was genius, well-reasoned, well-argued.

So naturally, the dimwits there all said, "Entymology? THAT'S THE STUDY OF BUGS YOU BIG IDIOT!!!"

It's such soft-headed bullshit. You can't attack the merits of an argument so you find a spelling error you can latch on to. Oh, that's me pwned. I really lost that debate.

I haven't posted on the Guardian website in many years and have no desire to. They only allow comments on a small percentage of articles these days. The reason is that the readership overwhelmingly disagreed with the views of the Guardian's writers, editors, owners, and whoever else is a part of this organisation. It was embarassing to this organisation and threatened their revenue stream. So they just shut down debate.

All of these pro-Muslim, pro-feminism, anti-Corbin pieces...you can write ten articles about this shit a day, seven days a week (as the Guardian does) and people are still not going to accept it. It's too far gone. It's not what the masses believe and no amount of cramming it down their throats is going to change things.

So it looked bad for the newspaper. So instead of maybe writing articles that people can agree with, they just turned the comments off.

It was always heavily censored anyway. Anything that didn't follow the Guardian's world view got deleted. There was no room for debate. You were either a Muslim-loving, Corbin-hating, feminist extremist or you were banned. In spite of this, people would still constantly shit on the articles. There were just that many new people coming in to replace the ones who got banned the day before. Nobody on earth agrees with the shit that the Guardian puts out so dissent is inevitable.