@oristarA,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
U believe that he was of the vu
that NO times shud have any spirit?? any widely held beliefs ?
oristarA wrote:If I were a lawyer, I would refuse to recognize U as you, and what is vu?
I have no idea. [I suspect that u DO.]
To narrate an event you sound like a well-educated gentleman; and all of a sudden,
your unique spellings look like a teenager trying to be cool, but it is not cool; he just acts like a hick.
Thay r not being "cool". Thay r being
intelligently efficient,
better n smarter than their elders; smarter than I was.
U shud have taken my spelling to U as a compliment.
IF I thought that u were sufficiently ignorant as not to understand me,
then I 'd be
FORCED to employ fully paradigmatic usages.
The fact that I did
NOT, when addressing
U,
resulted from my confidence that u r both sufficiently well informed
and sufficiently intelligent to
understand, as well as a native American woud.
Did I fall into error in
over-estimating your intelligence ?
Before my retirement from the practice of law, I was entirely committed
to completely paradigmatic use of English spelling. While delighting myself on the Internet,
I am no longer subject to those constraints. I am free.
I have repeatedly posted to my fellow natives that I intend
to demonstrate faster and easier, more efficient means of
expression of English, in the hope of leading by example.
I recognize merit in the counter-argument that I shud desist therefrom
insofar as E.S.L. students r concerned, but I have made an
exception
for an E.S.L. student who is sufficiently advanced in knowledge of English.
I wish that my fellow native Americans had been sufficiently well educated
as to have been taught (tawt) to spell fully fonetically. I try to compensate.
oristarA wrote:Any accurate expression needs strict spellings.
Competent logic, as expressed in efficiency,
requires that English be
fully fonetic. It is mostly fonetic, as it stands.
oristarA wrote:I read articles from Nature, Science, Hawking and Dawkins
and often was impressed by their accuracy and intelligence.
How much did that help Hawking and Dawkins??
oristarA wrote:Your teenage-like spellings seriously damage your wise image, Dave.
Then deduct the discrepancy from my
fee.
Be thay good, bad, or indifferent, I remain
1OO% fully
IMMUNE
from your evaluations of merit. When u have me on the clock
at $4OO.OO an hour,
THEN I will recognize your complaints
that I am not being sufficiently lawyerly in representing u.
I am not applying to u for a loan nor a job.
I feel guilty for perpetrating the perpetuation of paradigmatic spelling
insofar as it is not fully fonetic. It shud be.
Non-fonetic English spelling rapes logic.
It makes no sense to add "ugh" to the word tho.
It is inefficient & stupid to insert an L
into woud, coud or shud, merely because others do it.
Thay drive drunk and rob banks too,
but popularity of use does not make it right.
I eagerly support the lazy teenagers who r helping
to render English spelling more efficient. Thay deserve a
gold prize for being
efficient.
David
