Michael Everson wrote:

>
> At 14:23 -0400 2005-09-30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > > Since 6 September I have been in Senegal, France, Ireland, New York,
> > > Seattle, and am now in Vancouver, going to Portland, Jacksonville,
> > > and Doylestown over the next fortnight, and this matter simply
> > > doesn't have priority for me at the immediate moment. I am *busy*.
> >
> >Long before 6 September you were asked for your definition of "writing
> >systems," yet you continue not to provide one. You certainly had enough
> >time for contentless argumentative postings, addressed especially to
> >Suzanne.
>
> Actually, I already did provide a definition, but you overlooked it,
> embedded in one of my messages. But then, you don't read what I write
> very carefully. When I have time, I will dig it out and polish it up
> in a more obvious fashion. This is not a priority for me, and I am
> unlikely to get to it for a fortnight.
>
> The definition is not absolute, as the facts about the world's
> writing systems are not absolute.

(a) When was that posting? Why have you never alluded to it before?

(b) Until you do so, you have no warrant whatsoever for insisting that
Blyssymbolics is a writing system -- which it cannot be if it is, as you
state, a language.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...