Resend (Paulescu, etc.)

[Mark Mandel]

This time it came through just fine, Ron. I have no guess as to what may
have happened the first time. I notice that the last sentence of this one is
strangely broken:

Above all, she has a mind that is closed to the possibility that she might
be proven wrong about something, ignoring the fact that other scientists may
see things that s!
 he does not.

-- with an exclamation mark and linebreak inserted in the word "she".
Perhaps that last paragraph, if sent with no line breaks, was "too long a
line" for some antiquated piece of the path, and in the first transmission
triggered a "Panic, can't deal with this, MIMEify it all!" reaction. This is
purely a WAG, though. (Did you send it first from the Blackberry, and resend
another way?)

As for TZ and what he thinks "amateur" means... no, I've already had a
stressful day. I'll just continue to ignore him, like other sources of
useless and destructive noise.

Mark

On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 7:29 PM, RonButters <ronbutters at aol.com> wrote:

> I have been informed by two people that the message I've cut and pasted
> below came through to many people only as unreadable code. Please let me
> know if you can't read this one. I don't understand why this is happening.
>
> From:   RonButters <ronbutters at AOL.COM>
> Subject:    Re: AP: Spelling Bee protesters
> Date:   June 5, 2010 10:11:43 AM EDT
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> I did not "put down" Paulescu et al. I did suggest that what TZ had
> reported to be their conclusions might need to be reconsidered in light of
> scientific considerations that they perhaps had not taken into account. That
> is the way science works: we continually challenge each other's work.
> "Brutish cynicism" indeed! Rather than answer to the issues, TZ merely
> indulges in invective.
>
> I did "put down" TZ's hugely mistaken conclusion that Paulescu et al.'s
> work implies that the learning of English spelling is especially difficult.
> Interesting that he says nothing about THAT topic--instead diverting the
> discussion to a couple of red herrings.
>
> There can be no more telling an indication of scientific amateurism than
> TZ's view that the difference between a scientist and a crackpot is the
> difference between who makes money from the enterprise and who does not.
> Science is not basketball.
>
> A scientific amateur does not bother to read or report on the scientific
> record in carrying out her research (prompting such questions as, e.g., Do
> we really need research on the number of phonemes in French? if so, what is
> better about my account?). When she does report on scientific studies, it is
> often not taken from the work itself but from some press report; often the
> reporting is to lend support to of some obsession of the amateur or
> promotional scheme of the amateur. She fails to publish her work in
> peer-reviewed journals and books. She by-passes scientific training and
> research in formulating her opinions, depending instead on the receved
> "wisdom" of the culture as reported by Wise Granny, the hot guy she met in a
> bar, and/or the popular press. She believes that complex questions have
> simple answers. Above all, she has a mind that is closed to the possibility
> that she might be proven wrong about something, ignoring the fact that other
> scientists may see things that s!
>  he does not.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Zurinskas <truespel at hotmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 02:49:01
> To: <ronbutters at aol.com>
> Subject: RE: AP: Spelling Bee protesters
>
>
> Amateurish? You only do it for money, Ron? Why the brutish cynicism. You
> put down the work of Paulesu et al with a lot of speculations you have no
> proof of. Why should anybody pay any attention to your guesses about what
> might have been or not been done in the study? Why don't you research it for
> us and see if you guessed right?
>
>
>
> Meanwhile the proof of my "fiddling" is in the tables of my books. This is
> something you are most likely ignorant of, so you feel you can disparage
> them just as rightly as you've done Paulesu. You go to your phoneme count
> sources I've done mine.
>
> Tom Zurinskas, USA - CT20, TN3, NJ33, FL7+
> see truespel.com phonetic spelling
>
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> > Sender: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster: RonButters <ronbutters at AOL.COM>
> > Subject: Re: AP: Spelling Bee protesters
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Phoneme counts of languages were around long before TZ's amateur
> fiddling.
> > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Zurinskas <truespel at HOTMAIL.COM>
> > Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 01:35:46
> > To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Subject: Re: [ADS-L] AP: Spelling Bee protesters
> >
> > I lent my English only ears to apply truespel to French along with 12
> other major languages in truespel book 1. I found French the language with
> the most different phonemes than English.
> >
> > Tom Zurinskas, USA - CT20, TN3, NJ33, FL7+
> > see truespel.com phonetic spelling
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org