Leosghost - 11:31 pm on Apr 4, 2011 (gmt 0) [edited by: Leosghost at 11:49 pm (utc) on Apr 4, 2011]
Seriously off topic ;-) ..but no..
They're both the US versions ( take a look at the m_en_us in the URL string of your link there ) especially the "us" part ..see..;-)
"The Encyclopedia Britannica Company" has been US run since before I was out of school ..and I'm pretty old ;-)
I'm going by the actual dead tree versions of the OED that I have right here beside me ..bought in the UK..England where the language comes from.
Btw..I'm not English ..but have taught it..a long time ago, to real university students..as part of another subject..wherein precise speech was of the utmost importance to understanding as my students were from many different English speaking countries..
Thus "English" English is what one uses if one wishes accurate correct grammar and also for clarity and easy comprehension, and not the deviations and abominations that pass for it in various parts of the world ( including the current UK schools and society )and even make it into certain "local" dictionaries due to the lack of grammatical rigor of the compilers.
Next you'll be telling me that "nucular" is indeed correct..and that I should realise that realise should be written as realize..as the quasi-illiterate spell checker insists it hold be.
Distortion of language should be accepted as distortion and done deliberately in full acknowledgement of the errors and distortions..merely because incorrect forms of speech become the norm, does not make them correct.
And yes, language does and should and will evolve..but evolve means to grow and become better and adapt ..not to degrade and sink back to the lowest common denominator level of semi-illiteracy, whether it be in human written prose or machine spun advertising copy..
One does not adapt and improve and evolve by making ones speech or writing appear literate merely by re-writing dictionaries ( or content ) to give the appearance of erudition.
And in the context of search engines it doesn't work ..inspite of the protestations of some posters here ..if it did they would be keeping quiet and counting their money ..instead of hoping that someone has better spinner ( old "tech" that may have fooled ATW and even Google .once a long time ago ) than the one they have whose wares have just become sidelined..and who don't know how to write original unique quality content themselves .. or who have depended on a spinner for so long that they have forgotten how ..if they ever knew.
Human spinning works ( for now ) and is cheap and is ( for now ) one of the current flavours ..just ask ehow. ;-)
[edited by: Leosghost at 11:49 pm (utc) on Apr 4, 2011]