"Not all of us pronounce certain words in the same way." This is true. Some allowance can be made for different accents but problems will still remain. No satisfactory respelling of words like "schedule", "sure", "lieutenant", "vase", etc. is possible. Not only this but there is a difference in how different English speakers percieve orthography. Joe thinks [ei] when he sees "ae" but I'd be inclined to think [ai] (as in Romanised Japanese and Latin).
JUST LIKE BILL SAYS
These won't work for me. They indicate [tSu:] (as in Tuesday = [tSu:zdei]), [h@l] and [w@l].
Why not "zhonra"? This vowel is usually written as "a" at the end of a word (this is if we ignor the "er" words but these are only good for nonrhotic accents).
ARE THE DISTINCTIONS IMPORTANT
Sure most of us don't make the "w"/"wh" and "or"/"oar" distinctions but that doesn't make them unimportant if you ask me. For the benifit of those who make them they should be represented in spelling. How would you like it if your accent were ignored by those reforming spelling?
What's more orthographic distinctions do more than just show phonemic distinctions in pronunciation. It's useful to have different spellings for homophones, this way meaning can be more easily conveyed in writing.
I notice you've chosen "hurd" instead of "herd" as a respelling of "heard" because "herd" is already a word. You respell "where" as "werr", what about "ware"? You choose "wae", "wate" and "ait"; this is because, I'm guessing, "way", "wait" and "ate" are already taken. Why go about inventing new distinctions whilst at the same time you're wiping the old ones out?
AMERICAN STATE NAMES
Are we extending the reform to proper nouns? People are attached to the spelling names perhaps even more than they are to the spelling of ordinary words. Anyway "Arkansah" won't work for me because I pronounce it [a:k..nso:]. Also why not change the "i" to a "y" as is usual at the end of a word?
Arkansas - Arkansaw
Illinois - Illinoy
WHY THE "I" AND THE "K"
Throw out the second "o", okay, but why does this mean that the "c" should become a "k"? The sound [k] is usually spelt as "c" before a consonant letter. Throw out the "e", okay, but why does this mean that the "a" should become an "i"? The vowel you're trying to represent is [..]. There is no distinct letter for this in our alphabet: any would do. So why not just keep the original "a"?
chocolate - choclat
MY AUNT'S AN ANT
Sure nobody pronounces it [o:nt] ... do they? But not everybody pronounces it [@nt] I pronounce it [a:nt]
I pronounce these words as the traditional spelling indicates. I pronounce both of the "c"s (as [k]) in "Antartica", why drop one? I pronounce the "th" in "clothes" as [TH], why omit it? I pronounce the [w] indicated by the "qu" in "quarter", "quorter" would be okay but not "korter" nor even "corter" (which would be better than "korter" for the same reson that "scool" is better than "skool"). However, "quorter" would not be necessary. After "qu", "w" and "wh" the "ar" digraph is normally pronounced as [o:(r)] so "quarter" is fine as it is.
ARE YOU SHAW
I say [So:] not [Se:(r)]
TO MAKE A LONG VOWEL SHORT
Here we have Joe respelling what in traditional orthography are long vowels as short vowels. This may work for his accent but I use the long vowels that traditional orthography suggest. As I say [b..ko:s], [je..], [fo:tSu:n] and [bi:n] the original spellings are better for me.
I pronounce "towards" (or "toward") as a two syllable word [t..wo:d(z)]. Also I pronounce the second "a" in "caramel" as [..]. I say [k@r..m.l] so the original spelling is better.
NO A FISHER NOT A FISHER
Now we have a homograph with a word that means "one who fishes". You could write it "fizher" but that's just my accent.
I DIDN'T KECH THAT ONE
I certainly don't pronounce it [ketS]. Drop the "t", sure, but don't swap the "a" for an "e" (and thus don't swap the "c" for a "k").
catch - cach
YOO YOO YOO
It may be common in chatrooms but in English orthography I can't see how "u" alone would lend itself to being pronounced [ju:]. Joe seems to have a thing for the digraph "ue" but he forgets it's cousin "eu". This forgetfulness is common amongst spelling reformers: "ue" is their darling. However it is "eu" and its brother, "ew", which are perhaps more common in English orthography than is "ue". Why throw them out? Here's a better idea.
you - yu
ewe - ew
"E"S NOT NEEDED
Both of these work fine but why not just "o" and "i"?
O NO, NOT "U" AGAIN
Why the need to change the "a" into "u"? It is usual to use the letter "a" for [..] at the begining of a word. There are plenty of examples. Here are a few: "ago", "about", "awake", "America", "accustomed", "acoustic", "aghast". Does Joe want them all changed to "u"? Why would "u" be better than "a": it's [..] not [^]. This is a better idea.
again - agen
CONTRACTING A CONTRACTION
"Ma'am" is short for "madam". Do we want that fact lost?
MAKING A MESS OF YOUR PJ's
Weren't we trying to simplify spelling?
WHAT'S IN THE CUPBOARD
I think "cubord" is better. Why use "ur" when it's not [e:(r)]? You don't need a double "b": you don't have a double "z" in wizard.
Have a look here too.
And vote on the spelling reform poll.
Spelling Reform: How Far To Go