It's natural to assume one argues something because it is important to them and benefits them, but that need not always be the case. Have you considered that perhaps I'm arguing this not so much for my own sake, but for the sake of others? Or perhaps that I do so not because I care for change but because I value the discussion itself? It could be that I'm simply arguing for the sake of argument, or in order to illuminate a point I think may be worth mentioning. In other words, it is not that I "attach too much value to a particular spelling of a word" so much as it is that I value the argument itself and the fruits that could be yielded from it.

I argue that "color" is better to "colour" because:

1. there is no rational basis for the inclusion of the "u";
2. mere preference or upbringing is an insufficient excuse for this erroneous spelling;
3. Occam's razor requires us to choose "color" over "colour", if only for the sake of brevity and length;
4. "colour" is a linguistic corruption of "color" resulting in the borrowing of the Latin term from Old French;
5. since modern usage of "color" is virtually identical in meaning and application to its Latin root, the direct Latin root should be used any any unnecessary alterations of the term should be expunged;
6. the root of the term is Latin and therefore the Latin term should be used when there is no reason to alter the term;
7. lexicographer Noah Webster's rationale for his editions to English when helping establish American English were justified and follows similar lines of reasoning as described above; and,
8. virtually all instances wherein a term for color is used outside of regional dictionaries, dialects, and historical documents use "color" over "colour," including most (if not all) programming languages.

It would be childish to prefer a certain spelling variation simply because it looks or sounds better, or because you were raised that way. Critically analyzing and examining the term reveals that "color" is clearly the superior spelling in all but the most arbitrary and exceptional of cases.

I do appreciate how pronunciation changes over time, but I do not endorse the needless corruption and degradation of a language simply because over time, more peasants and plebs pronounced it a certain way and it soon became the norm centuries ago, before standardization of the language even occurred. I greatly value how words change and alter over time, and I find it fascinating to study, but I do not subscribe to the intellectually dishonest view that any and all changes in a language should be accepted as worthy of standardization or canonization, especially if the only rationale for it is the popularity of the change. Language is a powerful and indispensable tool for humanity and to mistreat it as such by permitting it to corrupt and degrade without any maintenance or care is a disgrace to our faculties of speech. Just as one shouldn't neglect a prized or essential possession, neither should one fail to keep one's language in pristine condition.

I am fully aware that this issue is pedantic and absurdly trivial, and I am one of the most frustratingly irritable Grammar Nazi's around. I don't consider that a scarlet letter, however, and if anything I wear that as a badge of honor. There is a difference between laziness or deliberate lapses in spelling or grammar, and ignorance or ineptitude in language skills. I can deal with typos, deliberate misspelings,, and malapropisms. The point at which something becomes a recurring element of one's language is the point at which it needs to be seriously considered, especially if it is erroneous in any capacity.

I don't look down on what you're saying because at least you're attempting to approach this issue civilly and rationally. Others aren't so willing. For what it's worth, I appreciate your input and for entertaining my long-winded quibbling.