Justice David Souter's Harvard Commencement Address

U WISH I coud not read.
One thing good about him is that he writes simply.
It s easy to find his advocating imaginary inventions
that he approves of adding to the Constitution, as if thay were really there,
but cheating can go in many DIFFERENT directions, depending on
who the cheater IS and what he intends to accomplish with his cheating.
In the future, the cheating might go in directions that u DON 'T like, Plain.

Its not necessarily true that in the future, ALL cheating
will turn out the way that u like, Plain.





David

The difference between Justice Scalia
and the liberal side of the Court,
is that HE opposes cheating; he wants to
just read the words ("fair reading" as David Souter puts it)
and apply those words of Constitutional law to the facts of the case; i.e.: play it straight.

That is the difference between conservatism and liberalism, i.e., cheating.





David

ROTFLMAO!!!

OMG, a white guy speaking with only white guys seen behind him!!! Somebody was not doing their job, because the PC laws do not allow this.

What 's so funny ?

OmSigDAVID indeed has a hard time reading. Have you seen his grammatical and typographical errors? Not to mention his liberal use of what most educated people consider marginally acceptable abbreviations for text messaging (u, r), but would never employ in any other format, especially with a full keyboard at their disposal.

WELCOME, to the forum, MsRoseily.
Permit me to introduce myself: I am retired from the practice of law, as a trial attorney.
For many years and decades, in the practice of my profession,
I adhered to paradigmatic spelling, being distracted from its ill-founded logic
(in a minority of instances; most English is already fonetic).
Before computers with spelling check, I corrected my legal secretaries' errors of spelling,
before I signed motion practice or correspondence.

Non-fonetic spelling does violence against sound reasoning
and teaching it to children is endemic, chronic child abuse
(unlike the Spanish, who teach their children ez fonetic spelling).

I wish to atone for my sins against logic, that I committed by following the orthografic paradime,
and I do so by demonstrating ez and faster ways to spell, in hope of dragging down and ending
so much of English as is an atavistic throwback to the Germanic origins of English.

I follow in the footsteps of President Teddy Roosevelt who sought to accomplish this
(beginning with the federal civil service system) while ridicule was heaped upon him
by those who wished to continue with the illogical old method of spelling.
(Roosevelt was stopped by Congress.) I know that in this endeavor, success is inevitable.
Man will tire of useless, unpaid labor of continuing non-fonetic spelling.

As to the paradime of spelling I AM A LIBERAL.
I wish to lead by example.

From the tone of your hostility,
I suspect that u dislike the personal freedom that is safeguarded by the US Constitution,
preferring David Souter 's filosofy of subjective, unlimited government.

My ideological loyalty is to Original Americanism as set forth in the US Constitution,
as amended per Article 5. I am acutely aware that DOMESTIC JURISDICTION OF GOVERNMENT
and PERSONAL LIBERTY are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL.

In my posts I usually represent the interests of personal liberty and Individualism,
scorning authoritarian collectivism. That motivated my posted objections concerning the speech of David Souter.

U can expect me to continue use of fonetic spelling.





David

I explained to you why phonetic spelling can not work in English.

You claim to love freedom. Yet you would impose your self-described phonetic system on everyone else. So, it would seem that freedom is for you alone. Your erratic spelling would be fine, if you alone used it but you wish everyone else would as well.

I don 't remember what u said.
I don 't remember whether I saw your post qua that.


I DO. I really DO, VERY, VERY MUCH.


U credit me with much power.



I wish that. The Spanish shoud not have a monopoly on sound reasoning.
The only thing that I am doing is displaying the error of continuing
to spell the non-fonetic way. U r an old stick-in-the-mud conservative, Plain.

U r rigid and unbending in your orthografic ways.





David

SPanish is directly descended from Latin. English was produced by several languages coming together and yet is not a creole.

That does not prevent us from spelling fonetically.
We just need a new, modern dictionary.
Where there is a will, there is a way. Almost ALL English words r already fonetic.
We have only a few atavistic throwbacks.



For instance, it is idiotic to spell the word enuf as "enough"
because it was thusly pronounced in Chaucerian medieval times.

It is a great offense against logic to spell the word tho
as "thoUGH" perpetuating this useless inefficiency.

No good comes from spelling the word r "are" or u as "you".
It is only wasted effort, time, ink n paper over a lifetime
and it is poisoning the minds of defenseless children
to tell them to do it the rong way.

C'mon, Plain: don t be an old stick-in-the-mud conservative speller.
That paradime does not deserve your loyalty, insofar as it is non-fonetic.




David