From tommylee@whitlock.org Tue Oct 24 22:05:14 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:05:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from iad.alfar.com ([192.148.252.37]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Gcawn-0006TK-0J for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:05:10 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by iad.alfar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37517C9657D for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:04:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from iad.alfar.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (iad.alfar.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21274-02 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:04:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.0.1.5] (studio.alfar.com [192.148.252.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by iad.alfar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E20CC9655A for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:04:49 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: TommyLee Whitlock Subject: [llg-members] Re: Eight LLG members at jbonunsla Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:04:47 -0400 To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alfar.com X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 290 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: tommylee@whitlock.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members As much as I would love to attend, there is just too much else going on for me in November. Take pictures and send reports! If this is as successful as it looks like it has the potential to be, maybe I can manage to attend next year! TommyLee On Oct 24, 2006, at 2:37 PM, Matt Arnold wrote: > There will be eight LLG members present at jbonunsla this year! See > this for more details: > > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=jbonunsla+2006 > > That's eight out of 26. If we discount the names of members that have > dropped out of activity, what percentage would that be? It's pretty > cool. > -epkat > >