i18n@... wrote:

>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >
> > If you're not even aware of my publications, what are you doing on a
> > list devoted to the study of what they are about, viz., writing systems?
>
> I am aware of the publications that you (the person on this list) claim
> to have written. How could I not be? You often reference it. Seriously
> though, I did know of the WWS before being on this list.
>
> But I don't know you, and so I can't vouch for the veracity of the
> claim. I suspect others on the list do know you, and I respect their
> opinion, and also since no one to my knowledge has doubted that the
> person who writes your emails is also the person who wrote the
> publications, all that carries enough weight for me to proceed as though
> it is true. But that is how the world works - with fuzzy and incomplete
> information.
>
> But I don't know what you claim to be true with 100% certainty, and I am
> OK with that. It is funny to me that you seem not OK with the
> uncertainty of who I am - are you like that with everyone or do you have
> trouble in general in situations requiring acting on and/or accepting
> incomplete information?
>
> No need to answer - I am just musing. I don't really want to know the
> answer to that last question.
> >
> > I also thought of the Australianist linguist Barry Blake.
>
> Barry is actually a more common name then I thought as a child. To this
> day I am always somewhat surprised when I come across another one.
>
> >
> > And you have no publications anywhere that might interest qalamites?
> > Then, once more, why are you here?
>
> That is not true. It is just you dreaming that I have no qualifications
> appropriate to this list. Anyone interested can easily find out my
> professional history. They don't need my permission to do so. There is
> ample public record of it.

You mean, I should google "Barry" or "i18n" and I'll learn of your
professional history?

> Why I am here is to learn more details about writing systems - just like
> the topic of the list. It benefits me professionally, and perhaps others
> benefit when I participate.
>
> What I wonder is why that matters to you at all. I personally think you
> hold yourself in such high regard that only a few people in the whole
> world are deemed by you to be worthy of having opinions on matters that
> you care about. Which is all well and good and you have the right to
> that opinion.

When you say something about writing systems, I'll know whether you have
worthwhile things to say about writing systems.

> But if that is accurate, I suggest you create your own private list with
> just those people, and leave this one for the rest of us proletariats.
> Or participate in this list in a manner befitting everyone else here.
>
> OK, that is getting to be enough in this thread...all I wanted to know
> is why the list split in the first place when there seems to be enough
> overlap in topics with the new list that folks on that one feel the need
> to come back here and announce what they are talking abut because it
> might be of interest here.

"Folks"? I'm not going to say it again.

> And then the topic gets discussed both here and there....That is why I
> think a single list is better.

When you want to talk about computers, go there. When you want to talk
about writing systems, come here. It doesn't seem that complicated.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...