Kjell Rehnstrom wrote:
> [Occam's] razor, perhaps?
        Perhaps.  What is the most parsimonious explanation?
But the question shouldn't just be about people like you, but
also about the people who hear about it and don't bother to
even learn one word, or who send a request for a tutor in
the Free Esperanto Course and never bother to send in lesson
one.  I agree with what you seem to be saying - that many
(should I say "most") of the differences between Ido and
Esperanto (such as "vi" versus "vu") do not interest the
general public.
        What interests the general public is "what can I
do with it now?"

> As for understanding Interlingua there must exist quite
> a large number of persons who, like me, can understand
> a general text in it at first reading.
        This is undoubtably true.  In fact, in preparing
my reply to Hugon's "Is Esperanto Really So Easy", I had
help from a friend who has studied neither Interlingua nor
Esperanto, but because he has a masters in French, has
studied some Latin, Spanish, and is generally interested
in English etymology, I was confident that she could read
the notes you and Martin wrote on that topic.
        For the most part, she could, but it was interesting
to see where her understanding broke down.  (But I'm
starting to go down one of those discussion paths where
many braver men have gone and failed to return.)
        But if you want to talk about Occam's razor, there
is another thing to consider.  This friend of mine did not
leave this experience with a great desire to learn Interlingua.
Many of the non-Interlinguan's I've talked with about
Interlingua don't see the point and say "why not just learn
French"?  (I know Interlinguans have an answer to this, but
I wonder if it's the kind of answer that appeals to the
general public.)

> Mi povis nesciante pri la artikolo vidi komparan
> esperanto-interlinguan vortaron, kiun mi tiakaze
> trovas pli interesa,
        Tio ne neas la fakton, ke la artikolo estas
facile trovebla.  Vi mem diris, ke estas "contra-
productive", ke UMI publikigu tiun artikolon, kaj
gxi ankoraux estas publika sub la nomo de UMI.  Mi
samopinias kun vi, ke la kompara vortolisto (malgraux
gxiaj eraroj) estas pli interesa ol la artikolo de
Hugon, sed tio pruvas nenion.

> Tamen, se oni pripensas la fakton ke esperanto kaj
> interlingua uzas du manierojn por reklami la internacian
> lingvon, do komparo inter esperanto kaj interlingua
> estas sufiche malnecesa.
        Diru tion al UMI.  Konsiderante la ekziston de
tiu miskomparo fare de Hugon kaj UMI, ia "komparo" ja
necesas.  Mi pensas tamen, ke mi forigos mian ligon
al tiu pagxo de UMI, se ili ne volas reklami la artikolon.