Florian
Back On Track
- Joined
- 23/2/10
- Messages
- 3,035
- Reaction score
- 657
Pretty obvious who it was without even looking at name or post count.
Oh well, at least Peter was trustworthy I guess, didn't even get one single post in.
Wouldn't have minded to give Bobby a fair go at least, but that's not for me to decide of course.
Sorry for taking this interesting thread off topic.
On topic, and not sure if it has been said already, but are we defining an existing style or are we trying to create one? If creating one, then I don't really see the point.
If something evolves naturally then great, perfect it, make it known/common, and then write the guidelines around that existing style. Seems like we are trying to put the cart before the horse so to speak.
Surely the americans would have evolved from their APA, and then, when trying to define it into a style, realised the connection to an IPA and subsequently called it AIPA, rather than venturing out on a mission to create a new type of IPA?
Oh well, at least Peter was trustworthy I guess, didn't even get one single post in.
Wouldn't have minded to give Bobby a fair go at least, but that's not for me to decide of course.
Sorry for taking this interesting thread off topic.
On topic, and not sure if it has been said already, but are we defining an existing style or are we trying to create one? If creating one, then I don't really see the point.
If something evolves naturally then great, perfect it, make it known/common, and then write the guidelines around that existing style. Seems like we are trying to put the cart before the horse so to speak.
Surely the americans would have evolved from their APA, and then, when trying to define it into a style, realised the connection to an IPA and subsequently called it AIPA, rather than venturing out on a mission to create a new type of IPA?