Why do people still study Esperanto?

[Le Baron]

Well I'll gladly hear you out if you have a better tl;dr to offer but I'm not reading 17 pages of a thread about Esperanto of all things.

Those two things are contradictory. I'd be writing pretty much the same as before. You seem to be making a dishonest offer.

Weirdly hostile tone I'm also reading into this, granted I might be missing some clues that a normal conversation would have so I can't know for certain.

The underlined bit is correct. You are reading it into this. Also ironic when you roll up with the sort of post I responded to: insult masked as carefree opinion. I'm not easily fooled,

I think it's interesting that you say that my opinion is inadequate, please tell me why and how to flesh it out. Otherwise I don't understand the need to say that, opinions are opinions after all.

Opinions stand or fall on how much they tally with factual reality and earned knowledge. Some opinions are worthless. If you're not willing to put in the work and are waiting to be spoon-fed or get easy 'tl;dr' vox-pops, that's always going to happen.

[Cainntear]

And what about the wo-man, you seem to forget about this one.

The fact that I didn't say it doesn't mean I forgot about it.

How is it any different from Esperanto's vir-ino?

It isn't, but you're ignoring the fact that...

In Esperanto female is ino (a full-fledged word not an affix, Esperanto only has roots)

There seems not to be something similar for a man. Whether this is an affix or a word, what Iversen said above was essentially that Esperanto takes a male presumption unless something is explicitly marked female.

And there is a redundant way to say a female person without a male root in it too: ulino. English does not give such a gender correct alternative.

It used to. Woman came from wifman, which added the existing wif (cf modern "wife") to man. There was also "bird"/"burd" which was comparatively recently transferred to what were previously known as fowl.

But you know what? That's all irrelevant. I am not arguing English is better than Esperanto: I'm saying Esperanto is just not neutral.

There is also a nice gender neutral root ri, although the original ĝi is also gender neutral, and you don't have to call a single person they (I can never get used to hear it in a conversation). The Esperanto way to deal with this sounds much more natural.

I grew up with singular "they". I'm not saying it's better. You are making a value judgement that's basically unscientific.

I like red cars. Do I stand up and say they are superior to other colours of car?

[Cainntear]

Maybe you should have plumped for the longer read and chosen to thank someone who knows what they're talking about rather than just talking, because your opinion right now is woefully inadequate.

Inference:

You are saying he thanked someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

He thanked me

Therefore:
You are saying that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Either:
a) you stop having digs at me
b) you get banned for having digs at me
c) I walk.

[Le Baron]

Either:
a) you stop having digs at me
b) you get banned for having digs at me
c) I walk.

I didn't know you were a moderator. I didn't even look at the name in the quote only read its contents. You are on my ignore list, as I was advised. So I otherwise don't and can't see what you post unless you cite me.

What has happened is that you seem to be looking for more victimhood. If you remember, you vowed not to have anything to do with me ever again. So why quote me?

Don't threaten me, remember that. Any post I've made in this thread is in good faith and justifiable. which is a far cry from a lot of others, even though they get away with it constantly.