I'm no stick in the mud, so keep the petty remarks to yourself.
That was a JOKE
; humor based on irony.
I thawt that the irony woud be obvious enuf
as to not go over your head.
It is playing off of your linguistic conservatism
as distinct from political conservatism, which u have rejected.
I'm also not foolish enough to believe that your ideosyncratic spellings will come to dominate English usage anytime soon.
Define "soon". I am cheered by the texting of young people.
I have a hunch that the young will have an effect upon the future.
Setanta wrote: YES
If anything serves to change English orthography, it will be the influence of technological change.
; very clearly, among other things.
I know of only one person who has ever willfully changed English orthography, and that was Noah Webster.
Even Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., despite his personal prestige and his position as President, failed miserably in a well-meaning effort to change spelling.
That is sad, but true.
He tried; he failed, but there was less texting among the youth then.
You may amuse yourself, but i suggest that you not delude yourself about playing an important personal role in influencing this matter.
It is obvious to everyone that my role in spelling will be trivial or less than trivial.
Maybe if I wrote for a newspaper. . .
Man will drop the useless burden of atavistic non-fonetic words
and will do so the same as if I 'd never lived, but in fora to which I post
I try to serve as a good example of easier ways to write