From matt.mattarn@gmail.com Mon Aug 07 19:18:23 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:18:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.184]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GAHAh-0004ul-T3 for llg-members@lojban.org; Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:18:20 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id m18so55152nfc for ; Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:18:18 -0700 (PDT) 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=aylua4Rmra3tZsih3L21ivbAolGHAy8rGbn7+TxA6UZ72JpuNUk8BH/tHk4SQhNfIo+25f8jnIzVFGKmchjMDW54F+V/APqsT495LerqH6Vi3ohlV5S4QzjSox2fQGqJho52YrycGGxGMRD1eU1uWiCt9sAgPTRijUDvg66Z8Hg= Received: by 10.78.117.10 with SMTP id p10mr2584245huc; Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.159.4 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 19:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 22:18:17 -0400 From: "Matt Arnold" To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG 2006 Annual Meeting Thread In-Reply-To: <20060807230024.GY27480@miranda.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060707224943.GB18983@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20060807041126.GE28190@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <44D6D0E3.30801@lojban.org> <55b258c20608070650h49460f55j94594cfa5e5ac0e6@mail.gmail.com> <55b258c20608071436p22055330v3efd2c539fba07d5@mail.gmail.com> <20060807230024.GY27480@miranda.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-archive-position: 248 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matt.mattarn@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members On 8/7/06, Jay F Kominek wrote: > On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 06:00:20PM -0400, Matt Arnold wrote: > > Point of fact? Jbovlaste is *not*, in fact, actually growing all that > > much lately, is it? > > Considering that 'much' is subjective, that seems to make for a poor fact. > > Here is a pretty plot so every one can form their own opinion on the > current growth rate: > > http://www.miranda.org/~jkominek/jbovlaste-growth.png > > Insert a whole bunch of caveats about the nature of the plot, here. > > -- > Jay Kominek > Thanks. This is why I asked. -epkat