> Your comment derided the system on a general level. You're correct, I am deriding it because it is needlessly weird even compared with preceding writing syst

> Your comment derided the system on a general level. You're correct, I am deriding it because it is needlessly weird even compared with preceding writing system and there's no good reason for it. While this might have been weird "by accident", a system like that would not work (or be accepted) today. Again, "you have to learn" is a bad excuse if there's no good justification. There's plenty to learn on the modern cursive system, but I don't have to learn what squiggles that look similar mean. There's no reason why t, d, e, c look like the way they look