On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:32:19 -0700, Jens Wilkinson <[log in to unmask]>

--- auliuniv <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > So, the public reading this list are turned off on
> > the whole concept. Of course, it is not just this
> > list, but the same type of confusion promolgated on
> > the public by other other groups too. It
> > just snowballs into a very negative affect on the
> > public. But, to the language hobbyist he/she
> > is only having fun.
> Do you really think that people are turned off from
> the concept of IALs because there is no consensus? I
> don't know if anyone has ever done any market research
> among the public on their perceptions of the idea of
> an IAL, but if it has been done, I'd be happy to see
> the results. My own perception is this: most people
> think that IALs are unnecessary, so the confusion is
> not really an issue. Some people may be turned off
> because there is no consensus. And I think also,
> people may be turned off because IAL promoters sound
> like zealots, like they have some magic pill that will
> save the world. And to be honest, a lot of people are
> turned off by people who tell them that they have the
> "solution".
> But I would really take exception to your comments
> about hobbying. I also see this as something different
> than a hobby. But on the other hand, if we act as if
> we have the solution and nobody has the right to even
> experiment, we will end up sounding arrogant and
> people will come to see us like Nazis who try to crush
> anyone not following the proper line. OK, it's sort of
> an image thing, but I think that one has to be
> careful.

Whatever my differences with Jens, I think this is one thing with which I
heartily agree. We need to work on this in the spirit of experimentation to
find the best solution, not dogmatism about solutions already proposed.


R. Gilson

[log in to unmask]