From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Oct 12 13:21:43 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:21:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao106.cox.net ([68.230.240.48]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IgR0v-0006FY-Aw for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:21:43 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by eastrmmtao106.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20071012202131.OLKW25350.eastrmmtao106.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:21:31 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([72.192.234.183]) by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id zYMU1X0093y5FKc0000000; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:21:30 -0400 Message-ID: <470FD7BB.2030202@lojban.org> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:23:23 -0400 From: Bob LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: New Business References: <20070918181955.GW10667@nvg.org> <20071010000942.GZ10376@digitalkingdom.org> <20071011190654.GO13890@digitalkingdom.org> <470E9480.3000307@lojban.org> <20071012022955.GG13890@digitalkingdom.org> <470F688A.2050209@lojban.org> <20071012172307.GD31644@digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20071012172307.GD31644@digitalkingdom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 397 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members Robin Lee Powell wrote: > I'm sorry, but I can't continue this discussion. What you've just > said is this: > > If we added more formalism to the BPFK procedure, people would > have done much more work than they actually did, and we'd be > done by now. > > This is not only insulting, it has nothing to do with reality at > all. It was not my intent to be insulting to you or to anyone else who is actually doing work on byfy, and I apologize if it came across that way. I have had the possibly unrealistic impression that byfy work gets bogged down whenever there is debate. The obvious solution then seems to be to isolate the issues that need debate from the rest of the language definition. If my observation does not reflect reality, I have no problem withdrawing the suggestion (though I still think that things would have worked smoother if they had been done that way, the decision to use checkpoints was made before you took on the job and I cannot criticize you for maintaining the status quo). lojbab