Exhibitor Order Form: Fill & Download for Free

I feel like you might be speaking of other markets besides the United States, as you use the word “Cinema”.As for the United States, movie exhibitors are self-policing as are the studios, having formed the MPAA to set standards and practices in order to preclude government imposition of the same.To be fair, broadcasters are using the public airways where anyone might be watching, while theater exhibitors are showing commercial media to carefully vetted age appropriate audiences.

TLDR: Because we borrowed some words directly from Latin that used -or, others we borrowed indirectly through later Romance languages that had evolved over time to replace the Latin -or with -er, and others we cobbled together artificially following one model or the other, but even then we have some conventional rules of thumb to distinguish between them.Longer Answer: One factor is when we borrowed the word, and whether we borrowed it directly from Latin or through an intermediary like French or Italian or Spanish.Our borrowings happened in “waves” including the following periods in rough chronological order:Pre-insular Latin borrowing (really ancient words Anglo-Saxons borrowed from Latin on the continent before they ever migrated to England)Early Christian Latin borrowings (words borrowed from Augustinian monks who settled in Kent after 597 AD)Late Christian Latin borrowings (loanwords borrowed after the Cluniac Reform in the early 800s AD)Early French borrowings (from the Norman Invasion),Norman-Latin borrowings (Latin words that were borrowed after Norman priests replaces the ecclesiastical hierarchy of native Anglo-Saxons, but which did not pass through French first)Late and Central French borrowings (more Parisian than Norman, often borrowed during the Hundred Years war or later during the Enlightenment)Romance language borrowings, often from Spanish or Italian during the Renaissance.Often (but not always), when we borrowed words directly from Latin, we kept the -or ending common in Latin. When we back formed words later that had Latin roots, we often followed the Latin convention of adding -or even if that particular form did not appear in Latin.Often (but not always), when we borrowed words through an intermediary language like French, we tended to use the -er ending if it had that form.One complication is that English already had begun using comparatives with -er endings by the time of many late borrowings. (Quick, quicker, etc.). That created some additional orthographic pressure to use -er endings on words that originally should be -or.In the Renaissance, competing orthographies tried to standardize spellings, such as Sir John Cheke’s system, or the Stanyhurst method, or Thomas Smith’s system of 1568. These often conflicted with each other, however. (One system might only use -er spellings, another might use only -or spellings). None could gain enough traction and widespread use to become the standard, so Richard Mulcaster’s policy of “whatever most people use most frequently is the correct form of the spelling” became the de facto winner.The complication is that later on, we then back-formed many words using one or the other in which the stem verb had no historical connection to either Latin or French/Spanish/Italian origin, often adding Latinate forms to a what was originally a Germanic verb.You might compare the -er versus -or and see similar patterns in Latin endings like -arius and -orius. If we borrowed the word early, i.e., if we borrowed it in Anglo-Norman or directly from Latin, we would have an -ary or -ory quivalent ending in our spelling: library, laboratory, salary, victory. If we borrowed it later from Parisian or Central French, we would see -aire or -oire endings, such as grimoire and so forth.However, once the jumble of spelling variations settled down, we find some reasonably consistent patterns. First, if you have a Germanic verb that ends in a single consonant, you will almost always take the suffix “er”—and frequently the preceding consonant will double:bat becomes batterbarter becomes barterer,cheat becomes cheater,fib becomes fibbergrab comes grabber.However, if you have a Latin source word with multiple syllables ending in -it, the word will take the Latin -or.audit becomes auditorcredit becomes creditorexhibit becomes exhibitorvisit becomes visitor.Again, there are exceptions—delimit, profit, are all Latinate, but they follow the Germanic model by the force of linguistic analogy.Another rule of thumb concerns verbs with a silent -e. Here, regardless of etymology, most words will take an -er suffix:advertise becomes advertiserbake becomes bakerchange becomes changerpage becomes pager.But once again, although the rule is generally reliable, one big exception is any word that ends with the Latin -ise suffix: incise becomes incisor, promise becomes either promiser (non-legal) OR promisor (in legal jargon), supervise becomes supervisor, and survive becomes survivor.Another common trend is that words with (Latinate) multiple syllables that end in the Latin suffix -ate use the -or suffix in spite of the silent -e.:accelerate becomes acceleratoradministrate becomes adminstatornarrate becomes narratorventilate becomes ventilator.However, if the word ending with a silent-e is Germanic in origin and monosyllabic, it will tend to use the -er ending instead:hate becomes haterskate becomes skater, etc.Finally, words that end in consonant digraphs other than -ct or or words that end in consonant trigraphs will tend to take the -er ending because of Renaissance spelling reforms. Some examples:catch, catcherchoreograph, choreographercough, cougheretch, etcherlaugh, laughterpublish, publisher.So, those are the general tendencies. Good luck!

Regardless of what you may have read or been told, no hormones are used in poultry production.In the United States and many other countries, extremely strict controls are placed on the use of hormones and hormone-like substances in animal feeds. In no case is the supplementation of hormones approved for poultry. Hormone use in poultry production was banned in the United States in the 1950s. If you visit the annual International Poultry & Processing Expo in Atlanta, the world's largest annual poultry, meat and feed industry event, you will not find a single company amongst the 1,250 exhibitors marketing hormones for poultry. Hormones for poultry are simply not available.Feeding growth hormones to poultry is completely ineffective and does not lead to increased growth. Hormones exist in two different chemical forms: they can be steroids or proteins. Steroid hormones, like birth control pills, can be taken orally and remain effective even after passing through the digestive tract. Protein hormones, like growth hormones and insulin, are broken down in the stomach; they lose their ability to act in the body when ingested.As people with diabetes well know, no oral form of insulin exists that can be taken to avoid all those insulin injections. If protein growth hormones were given orally to chickens via the feed, they would be broken down in the digestive tract and rendered ineffective. Therefore growth hormones, just like insulin, would have to be injected into each bird.Research indicates that the release of natural growth hormone in chickens is pulsatile, peaking every 90 minutes. Thus even if a positive effect were likely, growth hormone would need to be injected into chickens on a very frequent basis. The logistics of injecting hundreds of thousands of chickens with hormone illustrates the impossibility of this scenario.Growth is an extremely complex combination of metabolic functions. Modern broilers (the chickens raised for meat) have been genetically selected by specialized breeder companies to grow to their physiological limit. The modern broiler lives literally on the edge of its metabolic maximum. In fact, feed restriction is occasionally recommended in order to reduce growth rate and limit the incidence of lameness, heart attack and ascites. In tropical regions, a sharply increased growth rate would almost certainly double, triple or possibly quadruple the rate of mortality from heat stress.The challenge to poultry producers is to provide high quality feed (proteins, vitamins, minerals, etc.) and a healthy environment in the poultry house, including roof insulation, ventilation and adequate numbers of feeders and waterers to meet the broiler’s prodigious genetic potential. For those familiar with the technical aspects of poultry production, the rapid growth of modern broilers is a logical consequence of slow but consistent improvements in genetics, nutrition, management and disease control.Since we're on the topic, what about anabolic steroids? They certainly increase muscle mass in professional athletes, so what about poultry? The effect of anabolic steroids in athletes is only possible when steroid use is combined with rigorous physical training, like weightlifting. The most valuable part of the chicken – the breast meat – is composed of muscles used to raise and lower the wings. Chickens haven’t flown for several thousand years. No exercise = no benefit from anabolic steroids.The fact is, chickens grow as fast as they should naturally, without the use of growth hormones.