--- On Tue, 1/5/10, MacLeod Dave <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I'm not sure who to agree with on
> this subject. Here are two ways of
> thinking of the subject:
> #1: Esperanto is the 900-pound gorilla in the room and gets
> brought up
> all the time even when you do your best to avoid it. I
> remember when I
> had I was sure to avoid any mention of
> Esperanto
> whatsoever, and simply introduced Ido on its own merits.
> Then along
> came some anonymous comments asking why I was trying to
> make it look
> like Esperanto didn't exist, and why did I make such
> efforts to avoid
> writing about it.

There are Ugly Esperantists who do that sort of thing; I wish they would grow up. That's why my blog allows only moderated, non-anonymous comments: I've had not only trolls but spammers. When obnoxious people find themselves blocked, maybe they'll go away. It's certainly because of such activities that Eists generate bad press for themselves.

Also, when bringing up an IAL with
> someone, the
> question that follows from anyone who has heard about the
> subject is
> "so what makes this better than Esperanto, why should I
> learn this one
> instead?" Here you can choose to go with the daft hats and
> so on
> explanation but that starts to get into nitpicking, or you
> could just
> say that this new language deserves a chance or what have
> you. But it
> really isn't that comfortable a subject. Actually I just
> say that if
> Esperanto is Windows and Qwerty then (Occidental/LFN/Ido)
> is Ubuntu
> plus Dvorak, because there really isn't a better way to
> quickly
> explain it than that.

I would say that different people do better with different tools: there are Mac people and PC people, car people and truck people, and so on. I wouldn't claim that any auxlang is universally better; I would say it works better for some people. That way if the other person fails to learn one auxlang, he won't give them all up; he can say, "That one was a bad fit; I'll try something else."