From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Dec 10 16:47:30 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 11 Dec 2002 00:47:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 15694 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2002 00:47:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Dec 2002 00:47:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Dec 2002 00:47:30 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Lv2A-0008Vb-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:47:30 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Lv22-0008VH-00; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:47:22 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:47:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-server2.tampabay.rr.com ([65.32.1.39]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Lv1v-0008V0-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:47:15 -0800 Received: from macsrule.com (85.78.33.65.cfl.rr.com [65.33.78.85]) by smtp-server2.tampabay.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gBB0lETd016279 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:47:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:47:16 -0500 Subject: [lojban] Re: let's get rid of this lojban == loglan crap (was Re: tags) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis In-Reply-To: <83AB0CC0-0C8E-11D7-A99A-000393629ED4@uic.edu> Message-Id: <18417DFE-0CA2-11D7-AC7F-00039362FD2A@macsrule.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) X-archive-position: 3431 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rmcivor@macsrule.com Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robert McIvor From: Robert McIvor Reply-To: rmcivor@macsrule.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Mardi, déce 10, 2002, at 17:27 US/Eastern, Steven Belknap wrote: > On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 12:55 PM, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 01:13:30PM +0200, robin wrote: >>> Adam Raizen wrote: >>>> la djorden. cusku di'e >>>> >>>>> I'm not a LLG member, so I can't official propose this for the next >>>>> meeting (afaik). However, as a member of the community I would >>>>> like >>>>> to ask that at the next LLG meeting the "lojban is loglan" >>>>> statement >>>>> be considered for revokation. >>>> >>>> >>>> There was a very difficult and expensive legal battle fought over >>>> this, and those who participated in it would probably not want their >>>> effort to be nullified, and historically Lojban is related to >>>> Loglan, >>>> so at least for those reasons it would probably be difficult to >>>> straight-out revoke the "lojban is loglan" statement. I think that a >>>> clarification is in order, though. >>>> >>> >>> How about something like "Lojban is a variant of Loglan". Or >>> "development" or whatever. >> >> Sounds good to me. >> >> -Robin > > I like John Cowan's better: "lojban is a Loglan." > So do I. I don't think any logli (TLI Loglanist) that has looked at Lojban would disagree. Robert McIvor