> > > Just to get a little less serious, there are a few differences that I noticed on my recent trip to the States. My first sight of a "Walk/Don't Walk" sign was a treat, as was my first meal in Denny's.
> >
> > Gah. How can you say that going to Denny's was a TREAT? A recent issue of Consumer Reports for the U.S. gave it poor grades for food, and I agree. And just what's objectionable with the very clear pictograms for Walk/Don't Walk signals, which even young children can understand?
>
> Hold, please. Where did he say the pictograms for Walk/Don't Walk are objectionable? All I saw was that he said seeing ours with the words was a treat. I have seen the pictograph(is that the right word?) version in St. Augustine, FL(no, not St. George St.; that's pedestrian-only, or it was the last time I was there). I haven't seen any other places that have them, but I assume that there are others. I have no preference, myself.

Semantics again. Nyp is, of course, correct. I should have said "Just what is *preferable* with having written words instead of pictograms for the 'Walk/Don't Walk' signs...?" The tone of my reply was getting 'objectionable' in itself at that point, too.

For that matter, I'm pretty sure there's bound to be other logical discontinuities in my commentary, whenever I write anything of sufficient length. That would be *logic* flaws, not grammatical errors. :-) Wish more people would pick up on them... Thanks, Nyp.

Wolf "LOL Ellmyruh... 'Canada plates'?" spirit