Who the hell do *you* think I am? 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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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@...
>
>
> www.egroups.com/group/qalam - world's writing systems.
> To unsubscribe: qalam-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "qalam <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qalam>"
> on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> qalam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:qalam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]