The parent makes a good point. Maybe I am jaded, but this isn't a scarily impressive feat of linguistics. It is mildly interesting that someone put the time into this. I would be impressed if it were done on a typewriter. Maybe this rewrite helps clarify the point.
Do you think its possible
you can be both right and
wrong? The feat might not
be as crazy as the author
claims to think. I myself
can think of many ways to
achieve it. Come to think
of it, it may actually be
even easier because lines
in that guide afford more
ways to be broken because
they are longer. I am not
even a native speaker.
Brick-texting isn't actually that hard, in short isolated bursts. Other geometric texts are not necessarily much harder, But, keeping it up over any length is somewhat impressive.
I think the most "simultaneously observed forms" were brick-text with an acrosticon down the left-most column, or brick-text in iambic pentameter. I have attempted observing all tree, if ended badly.
As somebody said, I am just a
random guy on the Internet. I
learned this language already
as an adult never attending a
single lesson. There is a lot
of other people that know the
language way better than me.
Thinking that it must be hard
just because it is for you is
a well known bias.
(EDIT:)
Gigablah, I can't reply to your comment because apparently I am rate limited.
I am not saying it is easy. I am just saying it is not "most scarily/stunningly impressive linguistic feat".
I hope you can appreciate there is a lot of space between "easy" and "stunningly impressive".
It is easy to do this. All you
do is write some text upfront,
and go line by line and swap a
few words to make the line fit
in the margin. Use small words
to make it easier.
It's simple to fulfil the requirements, making it flow naturally is not. Also, any mistake early on in any paragraph will have cascading effects.