From nobody@chain.digitalkingdom.org Thu Dec 21 07:58:55 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list bpfk-announce); Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:14:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GxQJm-00058f-KT for bpfk-announce-real@lojban.org; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:58:51 -0800 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.168]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GxQJb-00058B-15 for bpfk-announce@lojban.org; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:58:50 -0800 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m3so2502599uge for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:58:37 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=N9O7GtH9uYctSzSyekufrP3UJRW8an+PYs+KJu9S86gR0+0i6Q4DJD0hnYdll49ZK2u+ZsPKcJXm+icSf+9xzIaRAmdXNiW1KoAjp8MhsQLQKrRhtmZGsoxmbIgxsHxkjarDNHgdV72l4UBJSnXK3C3FpH3Q5WAQ5JJ1e6e1m+0= Received: by 10.78.139.1 with SMTP id m1mr438612hud.1166716717208; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:58:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.144.4 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:58:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:58:36 -0500 From: "Matt Arnold" To: bpfk-announce@lojban.org Subject: [bpfk-announce] Re: BPFK In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <458771EE.9020108@lojban.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Score-Int: -24 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 129 X-Approved-By: rlpowell@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: bpfk-announce-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: bpfk-announce-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matt.mattarn@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: bpfk-announce@lojban.org X-list: bpfk-announce On 12/20/06, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Matt Arnold wrote: > > 2. Definition Of "Active" (In This Context For My Purposes) > > > > I consider the ones I hear from _at all_ to be "active people in > > Lojban." > > I am not sure if I understand you. Clearly, not everyone who is active in > Lojban has the necessary expertise to do BPFK work. You're confused because I didn't provide context. Sorry, my bad. I said: > 6. Seek replacements for the ones who went inactive or lost motivation. Lojbab replied to me without CC'ing everyone: > Nobody is active, that I can tell. So I replied: > I consider the ones I hear from _at all_ to be "active people in Lojban." In other words, the BPFK Members engaged in this conversation right now are only "inactive" in the sense that they're not doing BPFK work; but the point of my reply was that I'll work with what I have, because the BPFK Members Craig Daniel, Nick Nicholas, Charles Hope (xod), Jordan de Long, and Rob Speer are "inactive" in the sense that they've fallen off the face of the planet. At least I can nag the ones who are still in the Lojban community. > Which sense of understanding do you mean? WordNet has two that seem > relevant: > > 1. understanding, apprehension, discernment, savvy -- (the cognitive > condition of someone who understands; "he has virtually no understanding > of social cause and effect") > 3. sympathy, understanding -- (an inclination to support or be loyal to or > to agree with an opinion; "his sympathies were always with the underdog"; > "I knew I could count on his understanding") > > This is an important difference. For instance, I have a very good > understanding (1) of Jorge's motives and intentions, and vice versa, but > often we cannot come to an understanding (3). Some BPFK members sometimes seem to get a RyanKeppelish level of inscrutability from other members. Let's face it, this is a weird, difficult and abstract topic of discussion. Acheivement of (1) should be a prerequisite. However, my intent was to choose teammates with whom one could come to an agreement, so that work can proceed. > I agree that the status quo should take precedence, and that dissenting > parties need to draft a counter-proposal, but otherwise I don't understand > what you're getting at. > > The majority of the language is thoroughly uncontroversial. Nevertheless, > a BPFK section must be written on it, for use in the dictionary. My proposal was for a method to sludge through controversial areas and get out the other side without just steamrolling over one faction or another. Keep in mind I had no idea when I wrote that what would be controversial or how much controversy to expect. In an email today Xorxes was very helpful when he said the possibly-controversial areas would be "CAhA, TAhE, and perhaps something in FAhA and NU1. Everything else (the great majority) seems to require just grind work." I'm going to look up those selma'o and find out what they are. > An existing language feature cannot be "considered its own proposal", because > that would amount to the BPFK saying that it shouldn't be in the dictionary. The example I was thinking of was if we were to encounter another issue like the dot side and the la rule. The current pre-revision description of the status-quo rules about that is well formed and coherent as it stands, isn't it? -Eppcott