Who the hell do you think you are, "Barry"? (You sure don't give any of
the rest of us any hint of who you are.)

If you have an interest in spelling reform, and can't be bothered to
look at Upward's publications yourself, why should I hunt back some ten
years to do it for you?

i18n@... wrote:

>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > At it again, "Barry"?
>
> Yeah, if you send single sentence opinions unsupported by any facts
> known to the rest of us, on a topic that may be of interest, I will
> always call you out on it.
>
> I figure I am doing you and us a favor. I suspect you know something, or
> at least have put some thought into the matter, before arriving at your
> conclusion.

Your suspicion is correct.

> I am certain you know that basic rhetoric and how to present a clearly
> reasoned argument arriving at a conclusion. If you don't, then please
> let us know, and accept my apologies for assuming otherwise.
>
> But if you do (and like I said, I believe you do), then why spit out
> single sentence conclusions without any supporting argument and expect
> us to attach much significance to your conclusion?

Because I don't have the time or inclination to waste on the topic.

> > Years ago, Upward sent me unsolicited his Simplified Spelling Society's
> > book, insisted on maintaining an email correspondence, and refused to
> > accept the basic facts about the history of and justifications for
> > English spelling.
>
> OK, that is at least something. Probably not the best you can do, but it
> at least gives us something to go on. Really, do you expect that we know
> what correspondence you have had with him in the past? Are we to infer
> that somehow?

Yes. If you don't know _my_ work and publications, what business do you
have bitching about them?

> What do you mean by "insisted on maintaining an email correspondence"?
> You mean he sought you out for your opinion and then would not let you
> leave for a period of time despite your repeated objections that you
> wished to end the matter? How long/how many cycles was that? Again, it
> helps us to understand your conclusion if you present more supporting
> information.

Golly, you managed to figure out what I meant all by your widdle own
self.

> Similarly, what are the basic facts and history that he refused to
> accept and how did he express it? Has he since incorporated some of the
> views into his own works or opinions?

If you don't know the history of English orthography, I suggest you
study it. You can find the essential references in the subchapter I
wrote on the topic in WWS.

> Some feasible answers to these questions can certainly justify your
> conclusions, but a large enough set of alternative answers, plus your
> own reputation for being quick to attribute negative values to anyone
> that isn't thinking along exactly the same lines as you (as demonstrated
> in this thread among others), leaves enough ambiguity for the readers
> here that we can't simply accept your judgment on upward without more
> supporting data.
>
> That was why I asked - to give you a chance to clarify your reasoning.
> You may in fact be justified in this opinion of Upward. I don't know and
> probably most of the readers here don't know either. this is your chance
> to look smart and persuade us to come to your side. It is not as though
> Upward is likely to show up and defend himself - this is your game to win!
>
> I look forward to your more reasoned and nuanced discussion of Upward's
> work that leads to your conclusion.

Keep looking.

> Best,

Liar.

> Barry

--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...