Its a didlo mate

 

"I would have done it."

 

Yes, they are, but they dont mean the same thing which is the point of this thread

As we are all annoyed at the same thing we'll forgive your American spelling of realised

 

As you're in a forgiving mood, we'll forgive your lack of a comma and a full stop. (I treble checked that.)

 

Touche. I am sure we will also forgive your unnecessary parentheses.

 

Ah, you've realised that Leslie often misses the point. It's his age, you know, coupled with his overwhelming urge to post something pointless, banal and inoffensive.

Which winds people like me up.

 

I spell it with a zee too perfectly fine to do so according to the Oxford Dictionary

TX.

 

Ah, that explains it then. I'll be sure to look out for his pointless posts in the future

Oxford Dictionary only accepts realized due to its proliferation in US derived software. Realised is still the only true UK spelling of the word.

 

Its a sad sign of today's "youf" - saying that, there are some shockingly illiterate older users on here too, obviously too busy rubbing one out to pay attention in English lessons.

Sad, very sad...

 

Yoof not Youf.

 

E.F.A.

 

*gets coat & leaves in shame....

 

A common misconception, but nevertheless completely untrue. OED/OUP's preference of the 'ize' spelling (where permissible) predates the existence of computers and computerized dictionaries by centuries, and the actual reasons for that preference go back millenia.

As quoted in Wikipedia:
""[I]n mod.F. the suffix has become -iser, alike in words from Greek, as baptiser, évangéliser, organiser, and those formed after them from L., as civiliser, cicatriser, humaniser. Hence, some have used the spelling -ise in Eng., as in French, for all these words, and some prefer -ise in words formed in French or Eng. from L. elements, retaining -ize for those of Gr. composition. But the suffix itself, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Gr. -ιζειν, L. -izāre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic. In this Dictionary the termination is uniformly written -ize. (In the Gr. -ιζ-, the i was short, so originally in L., but the double consonant z (= dz, ts) made the syllable long; when the z became a simple consonant, (-idz) became īz, whence Eng. (-aɪz).)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_spelling
http://oxforddictionaries.com/page/s...iseyse?view=uk

As someone who did a few years of Greek and also spent some time in Oxford, I'm not going to disguise where my allegiance lies on the issue

 

In America you can only use "z" whereas in the UK you can use "s" or "z". It's perfectly acceptable to use either.

TX.

 

Gosh that is so good of you to point out that difference between those words out to me, I could have gone through life not knowing that!

Or do you think that maybe I realiSed that after all?

Les

 

In mollymoos defence your original post just pointed out that both words existed, something that wasnt the issue


I myself after reading it thought "pointless"

 

The letter Z is cool, don't you know?

 

Aye, 'twas a (sarky) winky

...but it is surprising how many members of this board don't know the correct usage

mb