Received: from [::1] (port=41668 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eTiXR-0002QS-Tl; Mon, 25 Dec 2017 22:16:33 -0800 Received: from mail-ua0-f179.google.com ([209.85.217.179]:32933) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eTiWu-0002PW-JM for llg-members@lojban.org; Mon, 25 Dec 2017 22:16:01 -0800 Received: by mail-ua0-f179.google.com with SMTP id n6so8096948uak.0 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2017 22:16:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=5ODxlkPAcQmfnFH+hXRv3rT4KgZ8jOmYkR0fqnDHvBw=; b=Vj5k/jjYrHhVzXjekc6uZUadpROI/pPy2SrEptr2tP6DX3FuL7daRcQTMH1lHABK5g +SHWqMq01WhpSKehGxlmu8fWEGAxqAVTc5P2L4L5uyeZQIaYfaD3vmTugPFNYDvhp/G9 Fiv5CCzOQhJY/hcTkgG4Vjv+QXMTT610lVtELWsvVJ8/fK964oltl0+WZH2Xmy7ZBNc6 1EQBQpK6EGbaah5eI1gnpjYkpRWolpW8LmAps54zDeg3RQKGVY8DPtkuw1Lc+x6H2HZC Qu1yIz9xbZ0exZQaNS/I9DYZuBZSoB27t1LjYp5rAV9FHxwhdaVOmNB/DZoOzIWAD+RD hMSQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=5ODxlkPAcQmfnFH+hXRv3rT4KgZ8jOmYkR0fqnDHvBw=; b=S9lxYZ3lO16nRBbhATNnvy1Q6twS374yxMQG91WgsiNOjtwzx6KRyAr6/7sjNNWLeH 1YcptCL62sftn342N9MmVDzfDgsL9qFzS95mMGsY+Z6dQ4W8qQqZo7mYj5LOCSVgmkxC xxrfIt+qTqrQkzLvPiKtNIaYENFsUjvjPLIgk0ITB9YnViSCxdTTUb3aTOWimsEHfA1E dmvLyXMPuuYbHgILayOpIb/oiLC8/X7NyOMtBpDfYYm0ih1j/hUg31ay5eHsNIEO75vU xvfMgQ03ttG6eSXCP+RDT9nGpfRB0ncISa20vOWYyNxxRB4YohbzBYg58zScO0iDicS4 IHig== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIGIQlvzLHpyhYzxlDdGCvLYhcDuMIZOsr8gh0aiCzkL8sgeLGs 93LoK6Hm1zBxhqNKToxoAoogMx2nOOn+n1XPaL0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosJCi0GwqGOSv0A36ZKncTegXj5MQ0JoUtgzcjDtRhfw/MUfDfZfEkgtqrJ5M9Ptmh75AtNL3YWJbuS9IJX89I= X-Received: by 10.176.23.24 with SMTP id j24mr24473888uaf.105.1514268953267; Mon, 25 Dec 2017 22:15:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Dec 2017 22:15:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Dec 2017 22:15:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <7074953.2veMK8YGUJ@caracal> From: Creative Care Services Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 01:15:52 -0500 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Unfinished Business: BPFK X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8269537822003370409==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org Sender: "Llg-members" --===============8269537822003370409== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403043612ec0dd3ab0561383716" --f403043612ec0dd3ab0561383716 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Guskant, I'm sorry, but no official statement beyond the results of your motions last winter will be forthcoming. Those are available to anyone who requests them, and will be in the published minutes when the secretary or other Board member, gets an opportunity to create them from the email record, and they are approved. Nothing new has been presented so no new action is necessary. All of your concerns were raised, and some resulted in changes to lojban.org while the decisions were made that others would not result in these or other actions. Are there any further comments on the topic of the BPFK? .karis. On Dec 25, 2017 23:50, "guskant" wrote: 2017-12-26 1:15 GMT+00:00 Creative Care Services : > I'm sorry, but you misunderstood me, Guskant. I wasn't saying that local or > online meetings _need_ official support, though telling the Board, maybe > afterwards with pictures, would be wonderful. Advertising and presentation > materials doesn't either, though it would not be a bad idea to make sure > the materials specify what is official and what is not official language > details. > > What I was saying is that monetary support may be available to allow > presentations at pay events, or other circumstances with submission of a > written proposal for evaluation by the Board. This was discussed in order to > allow presentations at scientific, linguistic, and science fiction > conferences and conventions when a small financial contribution means > attendance of the presentor is possible when otherwise it would not, or > similar situations. > > .karis. > 2017-12-26 1:42 GMT+00:00 Creative Care Services : > > > We are taking about increasing awareness beyond where it is now. This > requires us to look to alternative methods and variations on what has > already been done. > I see. Under the conditions that you meant the official support for those events were possible but not necessary, your post was not a defense against Selpahi's suggestion for dissolving the LLG. Then I don't have much to say about your ideas. My intention was to support Selpahi's suggestion, not to discuss possible business. > > Two points : > > 1) Dissolution of LLG is much too important to discuss mixed in and among > other topics. It will be addressed during this meeting, but not until the > other issues are addressed. > OK, I will wait for the topic for dissolving the LLG will come up as a main issue. > 2) Guskant, your concerns were addressed last winter in an open meeting you > attended. I understand you are not happy with the results of that > discussion, however that is a different issue. > > .karis. > Do you talk about the pieces of evidence for the LLG is dead? If so, I would like to confirm that those facts cannot be negated no matter whether I am happy with the results. It is a fact that we have not yet published any official reply to the open letter to the LLG that was posted two years ago. It is also a fact that we achieved nothing for resolving the problems that I posted for these two years. mi'e la guskant _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --f403043612ec0dd3ab0561383716 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Guskant, I'm sorry, but no official statement be= yond the results of your motions last winter will be forthcoming. Those are= available to anyone who requests them, and will be in the published minute= s when the secretary or other Board member, gets an opportunity to create t= hem from the email record, and they are approved. Nothing new has been pres= ented so no new action is necessary. All of your concerns were raised, and = some resulted in changes to lojban.org wh= ile the decisions were made that others would not result in these or other = actions.=C2=A0

Are there= any further comments on the topic of the BPFK?=C2=A0

.karis.=C2=A0

On Dec 25, 2= 017 23:50, "guskant" <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrote:
2017-12-26 1:15 GMT+00:00 Creative C= are Services <comcaresvcs@gmail= .com>:
> I'm sorry, but you misunderstood me, Guskant. I wasn't saying = that local or
> online meetings _need_ official support, though telling the Board, may= be
> afterwards with pictures, would be wonderful. Advertising and presenta= tion
> materials=C2=A0 doesn't either, though it would not be a bad idea = to make sure
> the materials specify what is official and what is not official langua= ge
> details.
>
> What I was saying is that monetary support may be available to allow > presentations at pay events, or other circumstances with submission of= a
> written proposal for evaluation by the Board. This was discussed in or= der to
> allow presentations at scientific, linguistic, and science fiction
> conferences and conventions when a small financial contribution means<= br> > attendance of the presentor is possible when otherwise it would not, o= r
> similar situations.
>
> .karis.
>

2017-12-26 1:42 GMT+00:00 Creative Care Se= rvices <comcaresvcs@gmail.com>:
>
>
> We are taking about increasing awareness beyond where it is now. This<= br> > requires us to look to alternative methods and variations on what has<= br> > already been done.
>

I see. Under the conditions that you meant the official support for those events were possible but not necessary, your post was not a
defense against Selpahi's suggestion for dissolving the LLG. Then I
don't have much to say about your ideas. My intention was to support Selpahi's suggestion, not to discuss possible business.


>
> Two points :
>
> 1) Dissolution of LLG is much too important to discuss mixed in and am= ong
> other topics. It will be addressed during this meeting, but not until = the
> other issues are addressed.
>

OK, I will wait for the topic for dissolving the LLG will come up as = a
main issue.


> 2) Guskant, your concerns were addressed last winter in an open meetin= g you
> attended. I understand you are not happy with the results of that
> discussion, however that is a different issue.
>
> .karis.
>

Do you talk about the pieces of evidence for the LLG is dead? If so, = I
would like to confirm that those facts cannot be negated no matter
whether I am happy with the results. It is a fact that we have not yet
published any official reply to the open letter = to the LLG that was
posted two years ago. It is also a fact that we achieved nothing for<= br> resolving the problems that I posted for these two years.

mi'e la guskant

_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members


--f403043612ec0dd3ab0561383716-- --===============8269537822003370409== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --===============8269537822003370409==--