[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
apology to eric tiedemann
- To: lojban-list
- Subject: apology to eric tiedemann
- From: wetblu!uunet!cbmvax!snark.uu.net!lojbab
- Date: 25 May 90 01:24:29 EDT (Fri)
This is a public apology to Eric Tiedemann for remarks that I made in my 'angry
diatribe' of a few nights ago.
I apologize for saying or otherwise implying that Eric had said either
that 'Yary Hluchan's questions were in some way inappropriate for lojban-list',
or that 'all people should direct questions to one person'. Eric said neither
of those things, and has made it clear to me that he did not intend his
statements to be interpreted that way.
I was unaware that Yary and Eric knew each other previously, and that the
offer to 'screen questions' was intended more along the lines of an off-line
briefing, rather than a screening for inappropriate remarks. I also failed to
note the significance of Eric's use of the words "feel free" intending to convey
this as an option and not a request.
On the matter of electronic media distribution, there apparently was some
miscommunication between me and Eric regarding what I intended as materials for
him to use with the New York class. Eric has made it clear to me that he was
acting honestly and in line with what he understood my intentions to be.
To reduce the likelihood of future misunderstandings on the issue, the new
issue of JL12 (which will go to all of you who are level 1 or higher) has a
(longer and) more refined statement of the policy and, more important, the
reasons for the policy. The policy is open to change if people come up with
convincing reasons for such change - it will be specifically discussed at
LogFest. For now, suffice it to say that there is no intent to withhold
information from people - it is more a matter of what is practical given our
resources and schedule.
I'm hoping that this apology will serve as a model for the future when
people say things that impugn someone's character or their motives for
activities promoting the language. A lot of people are investing considerable
personal effort and emotion into the Loglan/Lojban project, and occasional
outbursts are inevitable.
Hopefully, I will set a better example of avoiding these; at least I'll
try to be more careful in the future. However, I'm prone to 'off the cuff'
statements that may be offensive to some, and I expect to be called on them
(what you see in JL and LK has often been reviewed by at least two other people
before publication). I also view my role as leader of the Lojban effort as
being a 'civil servant' of the community, with the emphasis on 'servant',
though hopefully a bit more civil. I have to be a bit more careful than most
to think about the 'political implications' of any statement from me 'as
leader'. This is difficult when I'm on this net - I have a long-distance-bill
time clock hanging over me that prevents me from thinking out what I have to
say. Thus - please do not take statements that I make on-line (or at least
those in reply to someone else and therefore probably done on line without
sufficient thought) as 'decisions', 'policy', or even as anything more than my
Disregarding my personal remarks in my diatribe, I would still like to see
more discussion of the basic topics of the language on this list. We add new
people to this list all the time, who need to be brought up to speed, of
course. But more important, a demonstrated understanding of the basics is
essential to being credible when discussion moves to more advanced topics.
I can't be the one to initiate basic questions. And I'd rather answer
questions only when someone else can't, such as when they involve the illogical
reasons why we did some things in the language design.
In the hope of polite, but productive discussion in the future:
= Bob LeChevalier
President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.