parados wrote:McGentrix wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:When I was in school,
we were informed that we 'd not graduate
unless we cud swim safely. In that same spirit,
students shud be taught safety in firearms use,
as early in life as possible.
David
No offense meant, but was spelling a requirement for graduation?
When you write "cud" instead of could, and "shud" instead of should it makes whatever you are saying (and I agree with what you are saying) completely ineffectual.
Maybe OSD can't spell because he failed swimming. We don't want to discriminate based on which class actually teaches spelling.
For most of my life, I accepted and implimented conventional orthografy,
with few errors; my memory was fairly decent. Clearly, as an attorney,
it was necessary ( b4 I retired from the practice of law ) to observe
the norms in pleading practice and motion practice.
However, of recent years, I felt complicit in perpetuating
inefficiencies inherent in the traditional paradigm.
It occurred to me that I shud bear greater loyalty to sound reasoning
than to wasteful tradition; e.g., it is grossly offensive to logic and to
efficiency to teach defenseless children that " L s " shud be jammed
into wud, cud, or shud,
or that a " ph " shud be employed instead of an " F ".
It behooves us to fight against inefficiency and stupidity.
Centuries ago, when English was nearer to its
Germanic origins, there may have been a reason to add " ugh "
after tho; not now. That is obsolete.
I can be part of the problem by preserving the rong,
or I can try to clean it up.
I wish to demonstrate easier alternatives.
I liken it to carrying around 10 pounds of useless iron all the time,
because it is a tradition observed by our ancesters;
that deserves no respect.
When Teddy Roosevelt was President,
he endeavored to render English fully fonetic;
( most of it is already fonetic ). Tho he was very popular,
he too became the victim of ridicule.
I have no fear of ridicule.
I am also
confident that logic, ease, and
efficiency will prevail,
whether I help it along or not, but I don 't wish to be guilty
of tending to perpetuate the problem.
Obviously, one must choose his battles
and pick his audiences,
but I am cognizant that even if I fully convince
everyone on this forum that I am correct on matters
of substance, that of itself, will change nothing in the real world.
Insofar as freedom of self-defense
from violent depredations,
and of access to defensive emergency equipment is concerned,
I turn my attention to the USSC, in a spirit of optimism.
David
