Received: from localhost ([::1]:48260 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eZFBP-0001CM-GP; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 04:08:39 -0800 Received: from mail-ua0-f175.google.com ([209.85.217.175]:45296) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eZFAs-0001AC-8N for llg-members@lojban.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 04:08:08 -0800 Received: by mail-ua0-f175.google.com with SMTP id e39so11339707uae.12 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 04:08:05 -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=t8IEr/kjFnUPt7jqMt+NAElZPXcBNvgEgU+DAedz26s=; b=qKFwf+BMnV0eJZUMhzZ2s6vxrApMK2/E2cb/+MIy07Prqz5ZAtKzBrFV+rzjijY+ow SUr9//0X5Jc/Rd2mXEJlWYfYeUGChYcQhoc3fO+iDFaLPZgZFmkRYeiR2wFcK0qR1Xdq YpFJtYIVh94gZpfOOlQgNWUA+8Cals+PNFTzGBcGSyX/PV95gfKXMJjUgH/49P4YxEgk yCOybsFfYZlW47Lt/i7oXvnt4jv3UfyGF/dS8Dq5DiAdzZoNWKlD6i/xxTS+yrBIgaXA EUOWm4fUYx+ud9SxNHjhicoVhTsFLor4Zez9Um9Hiz6LiddrN95ChjDalpSa08z2aSWa y1JQ== 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=t8IEr/kjFnUPt7jqMt+NAElZPXcBNvgEgU+DAedz26s=; b=Kp1RFbtwhl7eEZwBlE/ebQwM2bpIu8e4irDuec7nwdlTf8iRaNf7bQfh1ow3QQkiWA fh6/Vu/4PZeOR986VfWlrC+Eq00OBW/buece21D1P6ML7BL3YIYjN8fM7oNTCkSPWIa6 kHtXNiCMqHTiol0qX+9vinTsTsLYyDyL9+8MaTUj2NGK7U4pw/k0w7jECs8QvPYPoEkJ 8mvK7Jpdi7SEJSyZPcB2BPp1EB7sA5yQFjsRDFGPPHltpeX7Pc0KU5Bvhgh3Hw9oX3YM Dh0D4v/boW9Zq0hT8ts7p/8BGDWD+cHt2FQ8QsV7KV90eQvSjfo4S6YLu54QinQB+o4g PYFA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytd96EoezGraHKsTSEXQ6xofudCtgsos0HaBkB16lNG0hYuZvJCQ ybvHJiWErZLRCn/a+2MmkZlhgt6bOLAKvWY4axQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotPXfRLd62IS+xNmnK5CEs2d2YWmZFtqeeA2IHT8yRY+DI2X+r/gkSShWabWjTkww1FahQp401Uys5ellQj4EE= X-Received: by 10.176.83.40 with SMTP id x37mr18791943uax.81.1515586078941; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 04:07:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 04:07:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 04:07:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <92D76729-D752-4738-BF24-2D5A6A0ACD4F@gmail.com> <0c93ad4b-af16-779b-229c-be364311fe23@selpahi.de> <20BF77A3-4FF6-4423-A493-61D1D22230C2@gmail.com> <2f305760-8dd9-79f4-2951-f7bf7d357616@selpahi.de> <29373617-d2a3-a6e3-27d3-6b457141bf11@selpahi.de> From: Creative Care Services Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 07:07:57 -0500 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -4.8 (----) X-Spam_score: -4.8 X-Spam_score_int: -47 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="===============0379900582584320263==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============0379900582584320263== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c191516dca55a05626ae1a3" --94eb2c191516dca55a05626ae1a3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for the links. I knew the newer version was fairly easy to find online, though we all now have the links right in front of us. .karis. On Jan 10, 2018 00:54, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > > > 2018-01-10 3:05 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services : > >> Is Cowen's edition available online? >> > > > Probably here https://github.com/lojban/cll/tree/docbook-prince/orig but > better to scan it to be absolutely sure. > > > >> For me the issue will be accessing the newer version >> > > > it's sold in paper form. It's available online. > > https://mw.lojban.org/papri/The_Complete_Lojban_Language > > >> since the original sits proudly in my bookcase. For most I expect the >> issue is the opposite. >> >> In any case we are faced first with questions of how we want the LLG to >> function. Once we have a clearer path then, if the path includes a more >> gradients lojban then we can discuss what standard we will use as a base= . >> >> .karis. >> >> On Jan 9, 2018 02:40, "Gleki Arxokuna" >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2018-01-09 4:08 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services >>> : >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 8, 2018 02:58, "Gleki Arxokuna" >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> It seems there are several long time participants who seek >>>> backward-compatible stable Lojban. Like Lojban being documented and ba= sed >>>> on CLL. >>>> But those members do not participate in BPFK activities, and since BPF= K >>>> has no rules such participation would be fruitless anyway. >>>> >>>> Karis. I suggest that during this or next meeting we/you/Someone >>>> propose an official policy on this stable variant of Lojban. >>>> >>>> E.g. >>>> 1. confirm that CLL is the basement >>>> 2. select policy for rolling back deteriorations of Lojban done in >>>> Robin's edition of CLL back to the original Cowan's CLL >>>> 3. fix obvious mistypes (mostly in English text) of CLL >>>> 4. confirm that this corrected CLL is the basement >>>> >>>> >>>> This makes sense, though it will probably involve discussion of whethe= r >>>> Robin's edition changes are deterioration or not. >>>> >>> >>> Well, we can't just approve CLL without reading it first. >>> Robin's edition added lots of new information to CLL mechanically >>> without further analysis. This could (and in my opinion did) introduce = lots >>> of new internal contradictions between older (Cowan's) parts of CLL and >>> "Robin's" ones. >>> >>> >>> >>>> .karis. >>>> >>>> 2018-01-07 9:25 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services >>> >: >>>> >>>>> I want to respond to a few of the comments made by DerSaidin and some >>>>> of the material to which these comments were made. >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 4, 2018 00:39, "DerSaidin" wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> I'm not an LLG member, I asked to join this list as an observer a few >>>>> years ago. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > I need reliable references for my future Lojbanic works. Actually, >>>>> there is not a big problem about the CLL because it is already publis= hed in >>>>> the forms of printed and digital book. I wish only that the identical= free >>>>> documents were managed by reliable archivists. As for the BPFK docume= nts, I >>>>> have more trouble with them because they are unstable contents and pl= aced >>>>> on a website managed by unreliable people, i.e. anyone who have accou= nt to >>>>> edit the pages. >>>>> >>>>> > Throughout all these years the community has known about Lojban's >>>>> problems and shortcomings, yet the same community chose time and agai= n to >>>>> let some crazy rules about a "baseline" ruin any chance of progress. >>>>> Respecting those people's wish for baseline conformity, we are now no= t much >>>>> further than we were then. Not only did it stifle progress, those sam= e >>>>> people didn't even stay around to keep using their "saved" Lojban. It= was >>>>> all a waste of time. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Actually, no. There are at least three people who have been involved >>>>> with this language for decades participating in this meeting. We have= n't >>>>> abandoned the language and we are all involved before the original >>>>> publication of CLL, to give you a time frame. LLG meetings (Members '= and >>>>> Board) included discussions of the problems with the language and eff= orts >>>>> to fix them. >>>>> >>>>> Certainly lojban has problems, and one of them is limited number of >>>>> people learning lojban to any level of usability, much less any fluen= cy. >>>>> The baseline was one aspect of efforts to answer the basic question, = "Will >>>>> lojban be substantially the same long enough for it to be worth learn= ing. >>>>> Whether efforts to stick to it should have lasted as long as they did= , a >>>>> shorter time, or a longer one has little agreement across lojbanistan= . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Some people want Lojban to be stable (no changes, only minor >>>>> clarifications and improvements to explanations). >>>>> Some people want Lojban to be further developed (substantial changes, >>>>> make the language more logical, fix issues, etc). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > Article 2 Section 1. Purpose: The Logical Language Group, Inc. is >>>>> established to promote the scientific study of the relationships betw= een >>>>> language, thought and human culture; to investigate the nature of lan= guage >>>>> and to determine the requirements for an artificially-engineered natu= ral >>>>> language; to implement and experiment with such a language... >>>>> >>>>> Both positions are valid and reasonable and useful for accomplishing >>>>> the LLG's purpose. >>>>> Lojban being a stable language is useful for learning and using and >>>>> experimenting with the language - furthering the LLG's purpose. >>>>> Lojban being further developed is useful for building substantial >>>>> improvements to the language - also furthering the LLG's purpose. >>>>> But it seems these options are mutually exclusive, Lojban cannot take >>>>> both. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't see that those of us seeking a more stable language >>>>> necessarily want to prevent significant change all together, but want >>>>> change by evolution rather than pronouncement or because one or a few >>>>> people think their new way is the way everyone should now speak. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My impression is there is disagreement and confusion and doubt and >>>>> hope over which option Lojban has/is/will take. >>>>> This is causing frustration: people wanting development, trying to >>>>> implement improvements, are blocked in the name of stability and feel= like >>>>> they're wasting their time. >>>>> This is causing doubt: people wanting stability are unsure if their >>>>> work using the language will be invalidated by changes to the languag= e in >>>>> the future. >>>>> This is causing conflict: people are trying to pull Lojban in their >>>>> preferred direction. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> True. >>>>> >>>>> I think the And Rosta quote selpahi gave also identifies this conflic= t. >>>>> This conflict makes everyone (on both sides), annoyed, frustrated, an= d >>>>> unmotivated. This conflict also make beginners confused and discoura= ged. >>>>> This conflict also cultivate personal conflicts within the community. >>>>> Since Lojban is the major (only?) focus of the LLG, these problems >>>>> threaten the LLG too. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think the path forward is: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Reexamine, clarify, and reaffirm the purpose/goals of the LLG. >>>>> - Do all LLG members have the same understanding? >>>>> - Do all LLG members agree with them? >>>>> >>>>> 2) Reevaluate how closely the LLG is tied to Lojban, and how Lojban >>>>> fits into the LLG goals. >>>>> >>>>> 3) Decide if Lojban should be forever stable (maybe do development >>>>> elsewhere) or continuously developed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Forever stable isn't the goal I've heard from anyone and I think >>>>> you're describing the conflict in opposing rather than significant wa= ys. >>>>> Continuously developed in a gradual way over time vs changing signifi= cant >>>>> portions of it all at once is how I would describe the conflict. >>>>> >>>>> - This may drive away people who disagree, but it empowers everyone >>>>> who remains. >>>>> >>>>> 4) Maybe consider what other work the LLG would like to do. >>>>> - Should the LLG make a fork Lojban for ongoing development? >>>>> - Can the LLG learn from other logical languages? >>>>> - Can the LLG do work more meta than developing a particular logical >>>>> language? >>>>> - Can the LLG do any work that would benefit all current/future >>>>> logical language? >>>>> - Can the LLG explore/document options and design decisions in logica= l >>>>> language? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 2:32 AM selpahi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 26.12.2017 17:17, selpahi wrote: >>>>>> > IRC user PoroCYon just plotted this graph for me, which shows how >>>>>> much >>>>>> > Lojban was spoken on each day of the last ~14 years: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > https://pcy.ulyssis.be/miscfiles/plot.png >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 2017 is clearly much lower than the years before it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, when I say IRC, I mean IRC + Telegram + Discord + Slack, as th= ey >>>>>> are all connected by bridges. This is the overall amount of spoken >>>>>> (written) Lojban. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> These are still not all the written or spoken instances, and besides >>>>> fluctuations should be expected and have happened before. >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr=C3=BC= ft. >>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Llg-members mailing list >>>>>> Llg-members@lojban.org >>>>>> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Llg-members mailing list >>>>> Llg-members@lojban.org >>>>> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Llg-members mailing list >>>>> Llg-members@lojban.org >>>>> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Llg-members mailing list >>>> Llg-members@lojban.org >>>> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Llg-members mailing list >>>> Llg-members@lojban.org >>>> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Llg-members mailing list >>> Llg-members@lojban.org >>> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Llg-members mailing list >> Llg-members@lojban.org >> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --94eb2c191516dca55a05626ae1a3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for the links. I knew the newer version was fairly= easy to find online, though we all now have the links right in front of us= .

.karis.=C2=A0

On Jan 10, 2018 00:5= 4, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

=
2018-01-10 3:05 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Serv= ices <comcaresvcs@gmail.com>:
Is Cowen's edition availa= ble online?


Probably h= ere=C2=A0https://github.com/lojban/cll/tree/docbook-pri= nce/orig but better to scan it to be absolutely sure.

=C2=A0
For me the issue will be accessing the newer version


it's sold in paper form. I= t's available online.

=C2=A0
since= the original sits proudly in my bookcase. For most I expect the issue is t= he opposite.

In any case we ar= e faced first with questions of how we want the LLG to function. Once we ha= ve a clearer path then, if the path includes a more gradients lojban then w= e can discuss what standard we will use as a base.
<= br>
.karis.=C2=A0

On Jan 9, 2018 02:40, &= quot;Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:


2018-01-09 = 4:08 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services <comcaresvcs@gmail.com>:


On Jan 8, 2018 02:58, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:
It seems there are several long time par= ticipants who seek backward-compatible stable Lojban. Like Lojban being doc= umented and based on CLL.
But those members do not participate in BPFK = activities, and since BPFK has no rules such participation would be fruitle= ss anyway.

Karis. I suggest that during this or next mee= ting we/you/Someone propose an official policy on this stable variant of Lo= jban.

E.g.
1. confirm that CLL is the ba= sement
2. select policy for rolling back deteriorations of = Lojban done in Robin's edition of CLL back to the original Cowan's = CLL
3. fix obvious mistypes (mostly in English text) of CLL
=
4. confirm that this corrected CLL is the basement

This makes sense, though it will probably involve discussion of whether Ro= bin's edition changes are deterioration or not.=C2=A0

Well, we can't just approve CLL without read= ing it first.
Robin's edition added lots of new information t= o CLL mechanically without further analysis. This could (and in my opinion = did) introduce lots of new internal contradictions between older (Cowan'= ;s) parts of CLL and "Robin's" ones.



.karis.

2018-01-07 9:25 GMT+03:00 Creative Care= Services <comcaresvcs@gmail.com>:
I want to respond to a few of the comments made by DerSaidin and some o= f the material to which these comments were made.=C2=A0

On Jan 4, 2018= 00:39, "DerSaidin" <dersaidin@dersaidin.net> wrote:
Hello,
= I'm not an LLG member, I asked to join this list as an observer a few y= ears ago.


> I need reliable refe= rences for my future Lojbanic works. Actually, there is not a big problem a= bout the CLL because it is already published in the forms of printed and di= gital book. I wish only that the identical free documents were managed by r= eliable archivists. As for the BPFK documents, I have more trouble with the= m because they are unstable contents and placed on a website managed by unr= eliable people, i.e. anyone who have account to edit the pages.

> Throughout all these years the community has = known about Lojban's problems and shortcomings, yet the same community = chose time and again to let some crazy rules about a "baseline" r= uin any chance of progress. Respecting those people's wish for baseline= conformity, we are now not much further than we were then. Not only did it= stifle progress, those same people didn't even stay around to keep usi= ng their "saved" Lojban. It was all a waste of time.

Actually, no. There are at least three people who have b= een involved with this language for decades participating in this meeting. = We haven't abandoned the language and we are all involved before the or= iginal publication of CLL, to give you a time frame. LLG meetings (Members = ' and Board) included discussions of the problems with the language and= efforts to fix them.=C2=A0

Certainly lojban has problems, and one of them is limited number of peo= ple learning lojban to any level of usability, much less any fluency. The b= aseline was one aspect of efforts to answer the basic question, "Will = lojban be substantially the same long enough for it to be worth learning. W= hether efforts to stick to it should have lasted as long as they did, a sho= rter time, or a longer one has little agreement across lojbanistan.=C2=A0


Some people want Lojban to be s= table (no changes, only minor clarifications and improvements to explanatio= ns).
Some people want Lojban to be further developed (s= ubstantial changes, make the language more logical, fix issues, etc).
=



> Article 2 Section 1.= Purpose: The Logical Language Group, Inc. is established to promote the sc= ientific study of the relationships between language, thought and human cul= ture; to investigate the nature of language and to determine the requiremen= ts for an artificially-engineered natural language; to implement and experi= ment with such a language...

Both positions are va= lid and reasonable and useful for accomplishing the LLG's purpose.
Lojban being a stable language is useful for learning and using and e= xperimenting with the language - furthering the LLG's purpose.
Lojban being further developed is useful for building substantial improve= ments to the language - also furthering the LLG's purpose.
Bu= t it seems these options are mutually exclusive, Lojban cannot take both.

<= /span>
I don't see that those of us seeking a more sta= ble language necessarily want to prevent significant change all together, b= ut want change by evolution rather than pronouncement or because one or a f= ew people think their new way is the way everyone should now speak.=C2=A0


My impression is there is disagreement and= confusion and doubt and hope over which option Lojban has/is/will take.
This is causing frustration: people wanting development, trying= to implement improvements, are blocked in the name of stability and feel l= ike they're wasting their time.
This is causing doubt: people= wanting stability are unsure if their work using the language will be inva= lidated by changes to the language in the future.
This is causing= conflict: people are trying to pull Lojban in their preferred direction.

True.=C2=A0

I think the And Rosta quote selpahi gave a= lso identifies this conflict.
This conflict makes everyone (o= n both sides), annoyed, frustrated, and unmotivated.=C2=A0 This conflict al= so make beginners confused and discouraged.
This conflict als= o cultivate personal conflicts within the community.
Since Lojban= is the major (only?) focus of the LLG, these problems threaten the LLG too= .



I think the pa= th forward is:

1) Reexamine, clarify, and reaffirm= the purpose/goals of the LLG.
- Do all LLG members have the same= understanding?
- Do all LLG members agree with them?
<= br>
2) Reevaluate how closely the LLG is tied to Lojban, and how = Lojban fits into the LLG goals.

3) Decide if Lojba= n should be forever stable (maybe do development elsewhere) or continuously= developed.

Forever stable isn't the goal I've heard = from anyone and I think you're describing the conflict in opposing rath= er than significant ways. Continuously developed in a gradual way over time= vs changing significant portions of it all at once is how I would describe= the conflict.=C2=A0

- This may drive away people who disagree, but i= t empowers everyone who remains.

4) Maybe consider= what other work the LLG would like to do.
- Should the LLG make = a fork Lojban for ongoing development?
- Can the LLG learn f= rom other logical languages?
- Can the LLG do work more meta than= developing a particular logical language?
- Can the LLG do any w= ork that would benefit all current/future logical language?
- Can= the LLG explore/document options and design decisions in logical language?=



On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 2:32 AM selpahi &= lt;selpahi@selpahi.= de> wrote:
https://pcy.ulyssis.be/miscfiles/plot.png
>
> 2017 is clearly much lower than the years before it.

Also, when I say IRC, I mean IRC + Telegram + Discord + Slack, as they
are all connected by bridges. This is the overall amount of spoken
(written) Lojban.

These are still not all the written or spoken i= nstances, and besides fluctuations should be expected and have happened bef= ore.=C2=A0

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr=C3=BCft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

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




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



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



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



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


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



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

--94eb2c191516dca55a05626ae1a3-- --===============0379900582584320263== 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 --===============0379900582584320263==--