Return-path: X-Spam-Personal-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:14:42 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MLMJB-0002Zz-5Z; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:14:34 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:13:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MLMIQ-0002Zg-54 for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:13:42 -0700 Received: from kcout02.prserv.net ([12.154.55.32]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MLMIN-0002ZF-0t for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:13:41 -0700 Received: from [192.168.0.100] (cpe-67-249-58-190.twcny.res.rr.com[67.249.58.190]) by prserv.net (kcout02) with SMTP id <2009062919133220200ser10e> (Authid: usinet.kpreid); Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:13:32 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [67.249.58.190] Message-Id: <645ACF0B-09EC-449C-B7B4-17502608F360@mac.com> From: Kevin Reid To: jbovlaste@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <714658.84884.qm@web88007.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: Request For Comments: proposed Jbovlaste guidelines Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:12:59 -0400 References: <20090620153541.GA23324@nvg.org> <714658.84884.qm@web88007.mail.re2.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: kpreid@mac.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-list: jbovlaste Content-Length: 461 Lines: 21 On Jun 29, 2009, at 14:12, A. PIEKARSKI wrote: > I really like these guidelines and I wish I had know about them > earlier. I certainly intend to use them, except for... > "...the notes field for a lujvo should not explain which gismu it is > composed of..." > > Why so? I don't know the original motive, but such information could be computed rather than handwritten. -- Kevin Reid