From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Oct 29 12:10:32 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:10:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Ima0N-0003a6-EA for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:10:31 -0700 Received: from eastrmmtao102.cox.net ([68.230.240.8]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Ima02-0003Z6-N3 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:10:30 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao102.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20071029191004.QAOW3771.eastrmmtao102.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:10:04 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([72.192.234.183]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id 6K9u1Y0043y5FKc0000000; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:09:56 -0400 Message-ID: <47262FE3.4000400@lojban.org> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:09:23 -0400 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Boise locals References: <472A40AB@webmail.bcpl.net> <47262235.9030502@lojban.org> <2204fa080710291147s7855859ene7fb20e19e4bc542@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2204fa080710291147s7855859ene7fb20e19e4bc542@mail.gmail.com> 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: 5756 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Jared Angell wrote: > My old records similarly show two people on our mailing list in Boise, > and one in Pocatello, but I haven't heard from any of them in over 10 > years. Hmm, one had an unusual name, and I see that he is probably now > a professor at a university in Pittsburgh. Have to look him up next > time I go up there. Another of them I know was only interested in > Lojban as one of several conlangs, and he probably never learned the > language (and may no longer be in Idaho) > > Back when LLG did paper mailings multiple times a year it was a lot > easier to find groups of Lojbanists. > > Does that not, indeed, indicate a regression in the # of Lojban speakers? Not hardly, since each of the two Lojban mailing lists has around 4 times as many people subscribed as were on the one list back then (and back then, 1991-1992, I doubt if more than a couple dozen people could write coherent non-trivial paragraphs of Lojban). lojbab