please try again... both your spelling (since you incuded the t in both) and your mostly invalid points.

Often was pronounced with a t-sound until the 17th century, when a pronunciation without the  /t/   came to predominate in the speech of the educated, in both North America and Great Britain, and the earlier pronunciation fell into disfavor. Common use of a spelling pronunciation has since restored the  /t/  for many speakers, and today [aw-fuhn]  and  [awf-tuhn]  [or  [of-uhn]  and [of-tuhn]] exist side by side. Although it is still sometimes criticized, often with a /t/  is now so widely heard from educated speakers that it has become fully standard once again.

also see any decent dictionary that keeps both pronunciations. this is much like herb, which can be pronounced urb or hurb. Both are completely acceptable.

I'll use semantics right back at you.  Some Americans do care what people in other countries think of how they talk so they do care.  Thus, Americans as a whole could care a little less.

i prefer to use the spelling or pronunciation that sounds better to me such as squid not squids and fish not fishes. i was just say most americans prefer [of-tuhn] unlike me. i wasn't saying it was incorrect. P.S. what is a game DB admin

The context you used it in does not imply that.  Saying you could care less implies that there is some amount of caring that is less than what Americans care.  That's fine, but it's incredibly vague.

If we pretend there are caring units and even let those units have negative numbers we could have person A that has 1000 care units, person B that has -1000 care units, and person C that has -1001 care units.

Obviously since we stated that we can have negative units and didn't place any bounds, any person, person D, could care less than person A, B, or C.  The problem comes with person C.  He does care less than person A and B but just saying person C could care less doesn't quantify how much. 

Your statement makes it sound as if person C cares less the same amount with person A and B.

Now if we say couldn't care less that says there is a minimum which we'll say is 0 care units.  If person A has 100 care units and person B has 0 care units then you could care less than person A which doesn't mean much but you could not care less than person B.  Person B is at the absolute minimum and it is impossible to care less than him.

So saying you could care less is simply vague and implies nothing other than it's possible to care less than you.  In a system that doesn't have limits, that's a pretty meaningless statement, especially in your original context.  Saying you couldn't care less has much more meaning and is not vague.  It immediately tells someone you care the absolute minimum amount and nothing could be done to decrease that amount and nobody can possibly care less than that.

It's funny that you are making a thread about semantics and then you make a post like that.

And that was only a quick glance.

I don't punctuate as i have said in another thread. this is the internet not a Harvard entrance exam. this thread was about bison vs buffalo you made it into a semantics thread. what is a games DB admin 

o rly?

Outside of scientific circles, only a douche would care.

would only a douche care if everyone called japanese people chinese