Dear Michael,

Even the Esperanto-Societo Kebekia (Quebec Esperanto Society) put a web page
against Ido some years ago. It decided to remove it, as it did procure more
publicity to Ido than despising the memory of de Beaufront and
underestimating the community of Ido speakers.

Thanks to wisdom and the passing of time this page has been removed. Perhaps
others will follow their example.

I believe that speaking about Ido as a *reformed Esperanto* manage the
feelings of the Esperantists who could consider that calling *better
Esperanto* the language of the Delegation would be more than disputable.



>Yesterday I trawled the net for links to do with Ido and put them at .
>The search turned up a couple of links to documents written by Don Harlow.
>I was somewhat disgusted and saddened by these. To purport to narrate some
>kind of history, but in writing soaked in malignant innuendo, is, well,
>sad. Most of us, prior to harming ourselves morally and destroying our
>reputation in defence of something, finally realise that it's not worth
>that, that if you have to do it, the thing is realistically indefensible.
>It is possible to give an unvarnished narration. It is possible honourably
>to attack and discredit by a simple, innuendo-free statement of damaging
>facts. If you can't do that, if every purportedly factual paragraph has to
>be an ingenious distortion contrived to damage the cause you are writing
>about, it is time to ask yourself why.
>What is at issue is an artificial language. Unfortunately there is no
>discussion of linguistic issues, no defence of Esperanto on the linguistic
>merits of the case, no criticism of Ido on its demerits, nothing but
>innuendo, insinuation, and character assassination. Why? Why must the
>defence of Esperanto be of that kind? Instructive, don't you think?
>That the response to the protest of James Chandler (quoted in the second
>document) is so shameless proves that further protest is futile. That
>factual errors (such as that claiming exclusion of Zamenhof from presenting
>before the Delegation of 1907) are so uniformly damaging makes one ask
>whether even mere truthfulness has controlled what was written.
>That there is a proclamation at a level above, a "Warning" stating in
>effect that honesty on the part of the author can't be expected, merely
>emphasises the shameless character of what is written. It is one thing to
>admit that we all have biases we may or may not know about. It is quite
>another to rejoice in that fact as a licence permitting any
>misrepresentation. If, unlike anyone else, you need to write such a
>"Warning", that should be a warning to yourself that you have gone too far.
>Following the links to Don's documents I have put links to the testimony of
>A.-P. Beauchemin (1933), necessarily a more credible account of why
>Zamenhof did not appear in person, and the two histories of Otto Jespersen,
>those of 1912 and 1928.
>--Michael Talbot-Wilson

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at