Re: META: Re: Let's return to conlanging (was: Li Lingue Modern)

"Raymond A. Brown" wrote:

> [kut]
>
> But my problem was with a guy who seems to be pretty certain that he is
> already successfully pushing two conIALs whose design was completed more
> than half a century ago.  If one is going to use Conlang to do that, surely
> one should be prepared to accept some discussion on the way those languages
> were CONSTRUCTED without being accused all the time of being negative.  If
> the languages did not have any defects, then why haven't they become more
> widely adopted after all this time.
Well, first of all, I am successfully doing that. Just open your eyes abit.
Again, another indirect put down.
I am certainly prepared to accept discussion on the language. Hopefully it is
from those who know something about it, other than the name. And, negatives
stand out.
No one said the languages have no defects, you dost exaggerate a bit. I have
said repeatedly the "defects" should be corrected by people actually using the
languages, not from those not using them and not speaking from experience of
how they are actually working. In fact, 90% of the criticism on Occidental I've
seen on the net so far is based on erroneous information.
Certainly, today Occidental is used already by more than any conlang I have
seen discussed here, except Esp. and Ila and possibly Ido. And, the user base
is growing daily.
There are several suggested changes to Occidental mentioned in the Cos.
magazines that I would love to ask opinions on here and on auxlang. But, sure
as shootin, if I did that someone would ask me to take the discussion
elsewhere.

There are some very good reasons Occ and RLR are not more widely used today, as
well as the others. And, _it has absolutely nothing to do with the language
being no good as you want to erroneously imply_. But, I won't bore anyone with
all the positive reasons.

Last thing. I am very glad Ray decided not to leave the list. However, any time
he makes remarks about me like the above, I think I have a right to respond. "A
guy [another put down to diminish?] who "seems" [not seems, friend, I am
successful at what I am doing, and that's the problem. People don't like that.]
to be "pretty" certain. [No I am totally certain.] etc. etc. etc. And, I'll be
glad to list all of the actual successes in the past 6 months, if anyone cares
to know what I've done starting from absolute zero.

I really don't understand why this bothers you so much Ray? Anyway, as long as
you don't mention me again with negatives, I won't respond with my disbelief
that you still want to do that. I don't think I'm that much of a monster
because I stand up for what I am doing? And, I would like to know why it would
be improper to reply to such statements as made about me above? Is there
anything wrong in that? Thanks.

Again, I am very glad you stayed on the list. You are an asset here to
everyone.

Al l sue,
Bob, x+