Re: Number of writing systems

i18n@... wrote:

>
> To everyone except Peter -
>
> I am still inerested in the answers to my questions, not getting into it
> with Peter.
>
> I see he gave it his best effort, and did not really communicate
> effectively.

If "Barry" doesn't have the background to understand simple and accurate
answers to his questions, perhaps he should learn about the field before
posting again.

> I am no longer interested in his reposnese to anything I write, you can
> treat the below as a sayonara message to Peter if you like.
>
> Best,
>
> Barry
>
> To the sad man named Peter Daniels:
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >
> > > Come on Peter, don't argue semantics or look for a reason to get your
> > > venom flowing. Just converse like "regular folk".
> >
> > Are you truly incapable of making a posting without a nasty remark?
>
> That is not nasty. It is a simple request. If you can't participate in
> answering my original question without being smartalecky and pretending
> you don't know the meaning of words, then don't participate at all - you
> did the same thing in this already thread in response to Michael - "
>
> Define "writing system.",
>
> which is your common and oft-repeated method of passive-aggressive behavior.

If you cannot understand that Michael's statement that Blissymbolics
"certainly is a writing system" is incompatible with my definition,
which is a pretty standard one among linguists, then you aren't prepared
to participate in the discussion. If you cannot understand that Michael
must be operating with a different definition if Blissymbolics _does_
count as a writing system, and that I'm interested in knowing what that
definition is, then you aren't prepared to engage in scientific
colloquy.

> You insinuate and pretend that you don't know the meaning of simple
> words, or that you can't comprehend simple sentences. You do this
> regularly in response to me and anyone else. Maybe you didn't know you
> had this bad habit. Now you do. Quit it!

No, "Barry." You are asking technical questions about technical aspects
of linguistics, but you are not interested in learning either the
technical vocabulary involved or the technical discourse that has built
up for a century in the specific field of grammatology (or, as I'm now
preferring to call it, with Hockett, graphonomy).

We have no idea what your own background, education, or abilities may be
(since you insist on remaining anonymous), but would you not greet
willful refusal to learn the fundamentals on the part of someone who
insisted on posting to a List devoted to _your_ specialty, but who
presumed to lecture you on matters both technical and personal, as
objectional and offensive behavior?

> You also hijack threads to the point that it is as common as it is both
> predictable and contemptible?

?

> > > Just curious, and I am off for the weekend so won't see your response
> > > until Monday...
>
> >
> > Is that an attempt at being passive-aggressive? (The same one tried
> > Labor Day weekend.)
>
> Are you keeping my calandar? I go away almost every weekend to be with
> loved ones these days.

No, it's the second time you've made that statement. Since most
Americans, _and_ Britons, whichever you may be, take weekends off,
there's no reason whatsoever for such an announcement, yet it must have
been made for _some_ purpose.

> Peter, this thread had no nastiness at all until you felt the need to
> answer my ordinary, simple, and fair question, about the same time you
> started up with Michael too.

I answered your question fully and accurately, yet you were apparently
unable to comprehend the answer.

Apparently you take any disagreement with you (or someone you watch) as
"starting up."

It is a fact that the question you put at the end of your message was
answered precisely and accurately in what you quoted at the top of the
message. You went on to attempt to apply a remark about shorthand to
phonetic transcription schemes.

> Get a life and don't answer my questions anymore in the future you can
> assume, that unless you receive them from me directly off list, they are
> not intended for you to answer. To the extent that you see a message
> from me as an excuse to act like a five year old, you are only amusing
> yourself.
>
> Have a nice life!

It will be marginally nicer if I don't hear from you again, but that
seems unlikely.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...