i18n@... wrote:
>
> Who the hell do *you* think I am?

I think you're an ignorant blowhard and bully who knows and cares
nothing about writing systems, but who appointed himself the task of
teaching me manners.

> Every time you complain I am hiding, I
> get private messages form people laughing at you once they figure out
> how easy it is too find out who I am.

Then let them reveal your secret identity. I don't care to waste my time
hunting you down.

> Anyway, I can and will look up Upward. But if you think your messages so
> far are a sufficient in response to Steve Bett's original post, then
> why did you even bother to respond at all? Just to show us you are in a
> mood to, and quite capable of ad hominem attacks today? We already all
> know that you are capable of that.
>
> Or perhaps, from your single sentence dismissal of Upward, we were
> supposed to deduce that you had a prior exchange with him in the past? I
> guess if we guessed that, given your history of testiness here, it would
> be fair for us to deduce that you found it somehow unsatisfactory, I
> admit, but still, the original supporting evidence in your first post in
> this thread was clearly missing.
>
> Look, we all know you are capable of much better writing, based on your
> well known book.

What the hell do you think email is?

> In fact, I am quite certain you are capable of better, and if you would
> reflect for a moment, you would see there is a progression of levels
> from the details of writing systems you are so familiar with the
> details, to the actual communication of ideas between individuals in
> writing, which is what we practice on this mailing list.

"We" do? Got any examples?

> Roughly speaking, that goes through spelling rules and the like,
> grammar, and conventions in rhetorical styles. My concern is not that
> you don't know the details of writing systems, or that coincidentally
> you had an unsatisfactory exchange with Upward regarding spelling reform
> matters.
>
> Instead, as you noted in the past, this is a list of people with a
> certain matter education, addressing topics that for many of us is a
> professional matter. I believe, therefore, that it is incumbent on each
> of us to use all of the tools available, at all of the levels I
> mentioned, to communicate effectively.
>
> Steve Bett, who a quick glance at my email archives shows has not posted
> here before, or at least since at least a year ago, found us, and wrote
> out a carefully written and fair set of questions. If you have an answer
> for him, then he (and by extension all of us) deserves better from you
> then what you have shown him on this thread. Old timers here know that
> you are quick on the attack and short on the rhetoric, but at least
> please make the rare newcomer seem welcome OK?
>
> I know you can do much better then you started out with in this
> thread.Like your parents perhaps, or certainly like a good teacher, I
> *expect* you to do better.

And who the hell are you to play my "parents" or "teacher"?

> Kicking and screaming and insisting you cant, or insulting me for
> pointing out that your writing style is less then your best and less
> then professional, isn't going to make you look any better in anyone's
> eyes except perhaps your own. Probably what would work best is to simply
> clarify the reasons for your conclusions about Upward to the best of
> your abilities, or to suggest that you already have done that, and then
> we can all move onward and upward, no pun intended.
>
> This is not about how *I* am communicating, it is about how *you*
> failed to communicate effectively. Why not just take a second chance and
> start over? I know you *can* do it - but *will* you do it, or continue
> to act like a petulant 4 year old boy? Only time will tell I guess...

No, it's about how you manage to waste page after page bitching about
anything I post, without yourself ever having contributed a single word
about writing systems.

> Best,
>
> Barry
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > 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@...