From matt.mattarn@gmail.com Tue Oct 31 08:16:58 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:16:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.170]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GewIB-0004Wv-Jp for llg-board@lojban.org; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:16:55 -0800 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 23so1476578ugr for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:16:46 -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=awJu6KkP94mqbsKqhOALXG+YruH76blJGGeEVug5aL/dUUe8Qj3wnTHTOQ7nWULqLuN3u+Pqam0DeGPlvqBSGdzzEfkhebghVVqqgKtKNERcu7wSJm71g0lUp4+9QSw9lVdIsxhjj9LG4vjVoZE4GbcClpQ6baV5HBeS/AVQ83g= Received: by 10.78.150.7 with SMTP id x7mr7062281hud; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:16:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.144.3 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:16:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:16:45 -0500 From: "Matt Arnold" To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: Motion to officially recognize new art 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: <45475237.5020108@lojban.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-archive-position: 212 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matt.mattarn@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board I would like you to see what I posted to the Lojban blog. It is essentially what I posted in this email discussion, with the addition of pictures. I am going to create a web poll about this and post the URL soon. http://community.livejournal.com/lojban/15886.html -Eppcott On 10/31/06, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > > > There is a potential fourth thing to be represented - the publication Ju'i > > Lobypli that Matt is (hopefully) reviving. It needs a masthead, and could in > > theory uses symbols separate from the others. That decision, I think, should > > be up to Matt or whoever is editor of said publication. As such, I have no > > objection to Matt using his logotype in the upcoming LogFest unofficially. > > I don't understand how your last sentence follows from the rest of the > paragraph. Can you explicate, please? > > I agree in principle that Matt can do whatever he wants with the logotype, > unofficially, but it is my opinion that Matt being both an LLG officer and > the organiser of Logfest renders him incapable of doing anything wrt > Logfest that will not be perceived as official. > > -- > Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ > There will always be a new day tomorrow > mother says that God is watching me > he takes away the pain and the sorrow > if only I believe. > -- The Monroes: All Those Years Ago > > >