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

--- 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

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
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.

                                                                     Bruce R. Gilson
                                                                     [log in to unmask]