From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Tue Oct 16 14:51:15 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:51:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IhuJm-0000MJ-M9 for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:51:14 -0700 Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:51:14 -0700 From: Robin Lee Powell To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: New Business Message-ID: <20071016215114.GQ5630@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: llg-members@lojban.org References: <20070918181955.GW10667@nvg.org> <20071010000942.GZ10376@digitalkingdom.org> <20071011190654.GO13890@digitalkingdom.org> <20071013110233.GU1196@nvg.org> <20071016193843.GI5630@digitalkingdom.org> <20071016194330.GF28745@mercury.ccil.org> <20071016202338.GL5630@digitalkingdom.org> <20071016213405.GG28745@mercury.ccil.org> <20071016213807.GO5630@digitalkingdom.org> <20071016214607.GH28745@mercury.ccil.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071016214607.GH28745@mercury.ccil.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) X-archive-position: 440 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 05:46:07PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Blunderingly I wrote: > > > > Hmm, let me clarify. Saying "Use xorlo" is good. Saying "Ignore > > > CLL-conformant" is good. Saying "CLL text is no longer valid > > > Lojban" is bad. I don't think anyone's doing that. > > That should have been: > > > > Hmm, let me clarify. Saying "Use xorlo" is good. Saying "Ignore > > > CLL" is good. Saying "CLL-conformant text is no longer valid > > > Lojban" is bad. I don't think anyone's doing that. > > > > I don't know if that counts "CLL text is no longer valid Lojban", > > but "ignore those" is pretty close. > > You can't reject older text that conforms to CLL, was what I meant. I agree that no-one is doing that. My point is that I believe that currently saying "Ignore CLL" is bad. I'd like some sort of motion to say that that's OK, so I can in good concious stop yelling at people about it. I don't much care what form such a motion takes. -Robin -- Lojban Reason #17: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/ http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/