Personally I think that spelling reform would create more problems than it solves.--Bob M 13:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I feel that it would be best to keep the arguments for an against in two separate sections rather than answer them in the sections themselves as this cloud lead to responses to responses etc. Unless there is a good reason to mix the for and against sections I shall edit the article shortly. Perhaps we should number each point so that they can be easily referred to?--Bob M (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2013 (CST)
- Yes, I agree with this user:Bob M. This article is:
- trying to cover too many concepts in one article rather than covering each idea superficially, which is not good from a Wikitheory point of view, hence the need to spin off articles on spelling change, irregular spelling, irregular pronunciation
- it's advocacy, pure and simple. Somebody has got a bee in their bonnet about spelling reform, probably found some other people with bees, and they've talked to each other and got angrier and angrier. Take a chill pill.
- This is Teflpedia, not spellingpedia, or spellingreformpedia. So each article needs some kind of TEFL-focus, and talk about pedagogic implications.
- The problem from the previous point is that the TEFL pedagogic implications of this are next to none. I expect my students to try to learn how to spell English words. I know it's difficult. It would be nicer if it were easier. I deliberately ignore a lot of their mistakes. The same goes for some parts of grammar. But anyone individually trying to change it is like King Canute trying to hold back the tide. It's going to change, slowly, but not much, and you can't do much about it anyway.
- There are a huge number of "wouldn't it be nice if...?" ideas that use the second conditional because they are complete fantasy.
- Duncan (talk) 08:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)