Re: OT: Artlanging is now mainstream

Many have written:


--- On Thu, 2/19/09, Peter Bleackley <Peter.Bleackley@...> wrote:

> >* Ronald Craig said on 2009-02-19 10:59:54 +0100
> > > Well, I haven't tried to wade through any of
> that yet,
> > > and I have to say that I don't feel
> particularly inclined to:
> > > I'm looking at it in Safari and the first few
> paragraphs are rendered
> > > unreadable by the background image.
> >
> >Select (w/mouse) is your friend. Amazing how many pages
> where that is
> >still a necessary first move.
Hey!  I did not know that... But it hardly made my reading experience any more pleasant.

> >
> Of course, a rant that criticises other people's web
> design while
> writing in grey on a dark background goes straight in the
> "Amusingly
> clueless" bin.
>
Among other things. I was glad to see the writer had apparently got through
Phonemics 101 Lesson 1, but I had never realized that voicing was non-phonemic
in Engl. fricatives. How curious. (He must have slept through Lesson 2,
Morphophonemics.)

The first few paragraphs are simply insultingly ad hominen. The later paragraphs
describing his "theory of con-language" (?) are reminiscent, very distantly, of
some of the Chomsky School's writing**-- lots and lots of verbiage and never
mind giving any examples that might show what the verbiage is all about.

There are enough mis-spellings, typos and grammatical errors to make one wonder what
grade-level the writer ever attained.
------
**Unfair to the Chomsky School; it's simply bad linguistic writing that is practiced by
all too many, present company excepted.