From lojbab@lojban.org Tue Apr 13 13:13:32 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao106.cox.net ([68.230.240.48]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O1mU8-0007LT-Du for llg-board@lojban.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:13:31 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by eastrmmtao106.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20100413201319.CQTN26523.eastrmmtao106.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:13:19 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.187.225.124]) by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id 58DH1e00B2hfrC6028DHs5; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:13:18 -0400 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=u9aaE4Pfr0xy9UvPxuh9qFR1i2SV5RyaXjJQawTgqeY= c=1 sm=1 a=oL0m3UOqEBgA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=lsg66w07okjF3vGJL2g+Jw==:17 a=K2emTZCUjI7iF1MY4scA:9 a=Z45NBYg-6E-GE0H6AoNp2RR5qRcA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=lsg66w07okjF3vGJL2g+Jw==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4BC4D060.9010108@lojban.org> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:13:20 -0400 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: [phma@phma.optus.nu: Re: jbonunsla] References: <20100410010118.GR11541@digitalkingdom.org> <4BC03DD7.8040500@lojban.org> <20100413171824.GA20647@digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20100413171824.GA20647@digitalkingdom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 660 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 04:59:03AM -0400, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > >>Robin Lee Powell wrote: >> >>>We gave Pierre money to go last year, and I indicated we could do >>>the same this year. >>> >>>As you can see, I didn't actually "Yes, it's all taken care of", >>>but it looks like he's booked already. -_- >>> >>>Anyways, we can certainly afford it, and I don't consider my >>>personal annoyance at his in-person idiosyncracies sufficient to >>>ask him not to come; he's certainly a committed Lojbanist, he's >>>just kind of aspy. >>> >>>I move we give him the $250. >> >>second >> >> >>>I've book a shared room again this year; I expect to eat the >>>costs. >> >>If we are paying for no one else, I think we should be able to >>afford to match up-to that $250 towards a "Lojban room" for use at >>your discretion. If that would be appreciated, I so move. > > > It would be appreciated. > > I second, I guess. :) I'll give Arnt till the 15th to speak up. If he doesn't object, we'll consider the motions passed without objection on the 16th. If he does, let us discuss and then vote more explicitly. I think that's the way we've been doing things of late - someone can correct me if you prefer something else. I don't want to take too many shortcuts just because there are only 3 of us and Robin and I alone are a majority. Taking shortcuts because of the implicit majority of Nora, cowan, pc, and I, without explicitly asking for objections, was one thing that got people upset with me in the 1990s. lojbab