|From:||Brian Betty <bbetty@...>|
|Date:||Friday, March 26, 1999, 15:50|
There has been some serious confusion on conlang about what I said. Please,
please, please, before you condemn me to death, reread what I wrote. I did
not say 95% of what people are arguing against. I'm not appreciating being
hounded to death over things I didn't say. And I don't have any memory of
directing a prescriptive diatribe against someone on this list, which is
certainly not something I would ever do. As far as I can tell, the only
thing I said which could have been misinterpreted as a personal attack is a
humorous response I made to a humorous message sent to me [as follows]:
At 10:57 AM 3/25/99 -0800, you wrote: [snip] pretentificatory [snip]
I don't know who wrote the original message, but they were clearly using
the kind of words I was complaining about in a humorous response to my
whining - something about being able to label pretentious people clearly
since they use annoying made-up words. If this was interpreted as a
personal attack, let me apologise and then repeat that this was meant as a
shared, humorous response to an injoke the writer was making. I am not in
the habit of rabidly attacking or correcting the speech of others; I
certainly would not do that over the internet without clear obeisance to
the writer and a *really* good motive. That was simply my Beavis laugh to
let the writer know I caught his humour.
So again, please be kind to me. I'm not an idiot or a linguistic
incompetent, and at least Nik Taylor caught my counterpoint. I was foolish
enough to respond to several points in one email, and it seems that my
denial, my point, and my counterpoint were missed by most.
"You know what I blame this on the breakdown of? Society!!"
- Moe, "The Simpsons"
Everyone thinks I'm psychotic, except for my friends deep inside the earth.
Only 281 shopping days left before the end of the world.
James E Johnson, 1920-1999