Re: Generalizations about English spelling

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> 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.

Which just shows how little you seem to know about anything outside the
narrow area of writing systems, including the closely related concept of
communicating an answer to a simple and honest question from Steve Bett
to the best of your ability.

But maybe I am wrong. Maybe you *did* answer it to the best of your
ability.

I have given you enough rhetorical rope to back off and say - "hmm, I
was rushed, here is a more complete answer", but none seems to be
forthcoming. so I can only conclude a gentleman as smart as yourself has
explicitly chosen to use the rope to hang yourself, rhetorically speaking.

>
> > 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.

Hey if you are too lazy to try to find out then why do you keep worrying
about it and bringing it up?

>
> > 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?

Huh? the email you sent to the list in response to the original question
was one sentence long, condescending in tone at best. The original
question was carefully posed. Try to track the point here, even though
we have just seen advanced rhetoric may be too much for you, this is
only intermediate level :)

>
> > 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?

Check the archives. Mine go back a few years. There may be more online
if you don't save stuff yourself. If you can't find an example of good
communication here in that time, then why are you even here? Just to
antagonize occasionally?

>
> > 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"?

I am a member of a list you sent a horribly incomplete response to - I
have the same rights to respond via the list as anyone else. If you look
back you will see my first message was just a request for clarification,
and you responded with vitriol like I shot your dog or something.
Reflects badly on you, not me. Or at least I am comfortable with how
others will perceive your reasoning and mine when they read this. If you
are too, then so be it. But don't pretend I have no right to respond or
question your answers, especially since you know damn well they are
below your usually acceptable level of scholarship that you insist on
for yourself and others. Do you want me to quote your original response
in this thread to remind you what you wrote?

>
> > 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.

You didn't write anything in this thread that was of value to anyone
except exposing yourself as a blow hard who holds others to standards he
can't even meet for himself.

But then it is not the first time you have done that - backed yourself
into a rhetorical corner where you need to either admit you didn't write
your best work, or continue acting a fool.

Notice that fear of your insults about everyone being below you has
stalled the traffic on this list, and caused you to insult everyone hear
who has come in and not met *your* standards. Nicholas, Suzie, probably
Steve have been completely silenced. Me, I keep hoping that one day you
will let others just communicate without putting down their concerns
poor questions because they are not precisely the same as yours.

It is not as though either the moderator of this list or God stares back
at you when you look in the mirror - what is it in you that compels you
to treat everyone as though they are beneath you hear (and IIRC from the
last time when I googled you, other places you hang out too)(which
fortunately for me I am not )

I gotta get back to work now, so you can stew overnight if you want to
think up some more childish thoughts instead of actually commenting on
the substance of Steve Bett's questions....I can't wait to see which
choice you make - clarify your earlier responses, thereby demonstrating
and sharing professional knowledge and insight to the group, or insult
Barry yet again for asking for a clarification of your initial remarks.
I am not a betting man, but if I were, I would put my money on the
latter even though I personally prefer to see the former.


Best,

Barry