0
   

CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 05:51 pm
DrewDad wrote:
IMO, it's a symptom of malignant narcissism. He enjoys the negative attention.

Bullseye!
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 07:32 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
IMO, it's a symptom of malignant narcissism.
He enjoys the negative attention.

Bullseye!??

U can read my mind, Joe ?

How did u work that ?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 07:36 pm
Re: CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?
parados wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
parados wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Yes; most discerning, but I was not disrespectful.
Rather, I had confidence in readers to easily understand
if I write U instead of you
or r instead of are
or vu instead of view
or enuf instead of enough
or tho instead of thoUGH.
I have CONFIDENCE that u r ALL smart enuf to easily figure it out
and once u do, its like riding a bike: its with u forever.


ouryay useyah ofay omethingsay ouyah inkthay isay easyyah otah understandyah oesn'tday akemay itay easyyah orfay ethay eaderray. isthay isay easyyah otay understandyay utbay iyah ouldn'tway expectyay oeoplepay otay aketay emay eriouslysay ecausebay ymay useyah ofay igpay atinlay ilewhay easyay otay understanday ifay ouyah areay artsmay enoughay otay igurefay itay outay, itsay ikelay idingray aay ikebay, itay etractsday omfray ethay ommunicationcay.

I am a member of the American Museum of Natural History.
I love that museum. It is one of the best in the world.
On the first floor there is an exhibit concerning Teddy Roosevelt.
He was a very popular President, held in hearty admiration, if not adulation.
The exhibit shows, inter alia how he was taunted in the press
for his efforts to end non-fonetic spelling, regardless of his huge popularity.
He was mocked and subjected to ridicule in the press.
I knew this b4 I began to advocate use of fonetic spelling.
I don 't give a dam; I doubt that he did either, robust fellow that he was.




David

Example #1 for you David,

You didn't deal with a single thing I said in my post. Why? It was clear and to the point. Instead you posted a non sequitor.

Did I claim to know pig Latin ?
I don t believe that I did.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 08:17 pm
Re: CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?
parados wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
parados wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Yes; most discerning, but I was not disrespectful.
Rather, I had confidence in readers to easily understand
if I write U instead of you
or r instead of are
or vu instead of view
or enuf instead of enough
or tho instead of thoUGH.
I have CONFIDENCE that u r ALL smart enuf to easily figure it out
and once u do, its like riding a bike: its with u forever.


ouryay useyah ofay omethingsay ouyah inkthay isay easyyah otah understandyah oesn'tday akemay itay easyyah orfay ethay eaderray. isthay isay easyyah otay understandyay utbay iyah ouldn'tway expectyay oeoplepay otay aketay emay eriouslysay ecausebay ymay useyah ofay igpay atinlay ilewhay easyay otay understanday ifay ouyah areay artsmay enoughay otay igurefay itay outay, itsay ikelay idingray aay ikebay, itay etractsday omfray ethay ommunicationcay.

I am a member of the American Museum of Natural History.
I love that museum. It is one of the best in the world.
On the first floor there is an exhibit concerning Teddy Roosevelt.
He was a very popular President, held in hearty admiration, if not adulation.
The exhibit shows, inter alia how he was taunted in the press
for his efforts to end non-fonetic spelling, regardless of his huge popularity.
He was mocked and subjected to ridicule in the press.
I knew this b4 I began to advocate use of fonetic spelling.
I don 't give a dam; I doubt that he did either, robust fellow that he was.




David

Example #1 for you David,

You didn't deal with a single thing I said in my post. Why? It was clear and to the point. Instead you posted a non sequitor.

I think that the pivotal point,
the pivotal difference, is this:
whereas MY adaptations are done to be easy n convenient,
your use of pig Latin is NOT easy to understand.
There 's the contrast.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 08:32 pm
Re: CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Did I claim to know pig Latin ?
I don t believe that I did.

Everyone knows pig latin. Why wouldn't they? It is easy to understand.



Did anyone claim to understand the fractured spellings you peddle?
I don't believe they did.

Yet you claim they should understand it just because you use it. I think my point is made but I don't think you will ever get it.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 09:35 pm
Re: CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?
parados wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Did I claim to know pig Latin ?
I don t believe that I did.

Everyone knows pig latin. Why wouldn't they? It is easy to understand.



Did anyone claim to understand the fractured spellings you peddle?
I don't believe they did.

Yet you claim they should understand it just because you use it.
I think my point is made but I don't think you will ever get it.

Lemme get this straight:
do u assert that when a citizen of A2K
reads vu instead of view,
or enuf instead of enough, he will not understand what it is ?

and that the context is irrelevant ?
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 11:20 pm
David, your "adaptations" are neither easy nor convenient, nor are they consistent. Since I do in fact know something about phonetics--and I see little evidence that you do--when I see "vu" I read it as most phonetic systems would pronounce it, which in usual English orthography would be "voo" (like the French "vous"). It is, of course, not that in your personal idiosyncratic system. Nor is it the same "u" vowel sound in your word "shud". Nor is it the same vowel sound as in "mud", which you also used in your post. It is, in other words, a completely new inconsistency that you are foisting upon us, that you expect us to decode, in the name of "convenience".

Your system is half-assed. It is not well thought out. It is not systematic. It is not shared by anyone other than you, and so it does not promote communication.

To take another really ill-considered example. You replace "paradigm" with "paradime", but leaving aside the question of whether you are really ahead when you replace a spelling with one silent letter with a spelling that has a completely different silent letter, WTF are you going to do with the adjectival form "paradigmatic", which has a not-at-all-silent hard G? If you spell it "paradigmatic", you have lost all connection with the noun it comes from ("paradime"). If you spell it "paradimatic", from your "paradime", it isn't phonetic because you have lost the hard G that is in the actual word as it is pronounced. Half-assed all the way.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 11:32 pm
For some reason, David reminds me of William Steig's kid's-book classic "C D B! (See the Bee!)" (except that Steig was easier to understand, and more fun).

O, O, I C A B. K-N U C D B ?

S, I C A B 2. E S A L-O B.

E S A B-Z B.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 01:12 am
Kepe eeyore bluddy hanz awf r langwidj (that's phonetic. Really easy, quick, and convenient to read, isn't it?)
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 01:22 am
Kepe eeyore bluddy hanz awf r langwidj (that'z funetic. Reelee ez, quick, n convenyent 2 rede, izn it?)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/20/2021 at 05:48:14