Hello Janis,

 > >> If you are really interested in avoiding ambiguity, you
 > >> would ask the residents of the places in question how
 > >> theyidentify themselves, and given their answers, use
 > >> that information in addressing those people..

 > > I would consider that /if/, as usual, it wasn't a one way street.

 > Then it's _not_ a matter of trying to be consise or trying
 > to avoid ambiguity.

The goal is to avoid ambuguity. But not at all cost. I might consider a
compromise if the others are willing to reciprocate.

 > > I have repeatedly asked the people that object to the use
 > > of "USAian" to refrain from use the name
"Holland" to refer
 > > to my country as it is wrong.

 > You haven't asked me and I do object to you using "USAian",
 >  neither have I ever called the place where you live, "Holland".

Up until now you have not expressed objections to the use of the word
"USAian either as far as I recall. So obviously you were not included
in those who I asked.

 > As a matter of fact, I haven't seen anyone here do that.

Maybe not in this particular echomail area. They sure have been doing it in
FIDONEWS and FN_SYSOP.

 > Some people may use Holland since that is the way
 > they were taught to identify your country.  As another
 > indication that these terms may be used interchangeably,

I am not going to argue. /I/ find it wrong and therefore I object to it's use.

If people ewant me to stop using "USAiand" because /they/ object,
it should also be sufficient that /I/ object to "Holland".

 > > But they refuse, among other things, on the ground thet they
 > > know better how my country should be called than I do.

 > I think you are just too hard-headed to admit that you
 > would rather antagonize people than be precise.

Think what you like. Point is that these people are not willing to reciprocate.

Cheers, Michiel

--- InterMail 229kx