Received: from localhost ([::1]:47330 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eTvjk-0003Ss-GO; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 12:22:08 -0800 Received: from eastrmfepo103.cox.net ([68.230.241.215]:41730) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eTvjE-0003Rq-MZ for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 12:21:37 -0800 Received: from eastrmimpo209.cox.net ([68.230.241.224]) by eastrmfepo103.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.28 201-2260-151-171-20160122) with ESMTP id <20171226202130.LOVL4084.eastrmfepo103.cox.net@eastrmimpo209.cox.net> for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 15:21:30 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.102] ([72.209.244.98]) by eastrmimpo209.cox.net with cox id qkMV1w0112869s801kMWKZ; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 15:21:30 -0500 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020206.5A42AF4A.00BB, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=a81AzQaF c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=JFEMeGVUNR3hGa77igez4Q==:117 a=JFEMeGVUNR3hGa77igez4Q==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=PMayK-KgzlQA:10 a=_VfRjl5nRgdUJSIf4jsA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none To: llg-members@lojban.org References: <7074953.2veMK8YGUJ@caracal> From: Bob LeChevalier Message-ID: <120314fb-6d61-72b9-d7ec-48bdf96036ab@lojban.org> Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 15:21:30 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org On 12/25/2017 11:47 PM, guskant wrote: > 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. There are no such facts. > 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. No one apparently wanted to make any official reply, so none was made. It isn't required that LLG respond to such things. If you have an issue you want to ne considered, make a motion. >? It is also a fact that we achieved nothing for > resolving the problems that I posted for these two years. It isn't necessarily the case that others agree that those problems exist or are of particular concern. I recall that you had some kind of enmity toward gleki and/or his actions, and selpa'i has recently expressed some unhappiness with him in this discussion. But unless LLG or the Secretary (or the BPFK if applicable) adopts some rules or procedures, no one can or will stop gleki from doing what he sees fit. But I'm not sure anyone (but you) cares that much; there certainly should be room in the Lojbanic world for both of you. gleki is doing something, (as are you) and that alone is evidence that Lojban is not "dead". If neither of you need or want any official LLG support to do what you wish, then of course it is not necessary that we do so (though I for one would welcome your regularly reporting on what you are doing. I admire much of it insofar as I understand.) lojbab _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members