Received: from mail-vc0-f186.google.com ([209.85.220.186]:44296) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Ueo0r-0003gE-6U for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:58:17 -0700 Received: by mail-vc0-f186.google.com with SMTP id ha11sf256303vcb.23 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:57:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-beenthere:x-authenticated:x-provags-id:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-y-gmx-trusted:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=2AYp/utkIej6wE0DKDLEICXheDH66FCSJUg621hPnOE=; b=R/lnWxDZ779M4cgsYP45hM9Jgz3DExTGCXOQas9npvYO/Cl9bTvbVMk/uyPcNYeb/G uMgYCIn3rTRBRxTto5u6IZhIF/znWmDsHp3p4Jwx1jMBBhk84QVVxl3kzY0gaKy9g5g9 l7axBkiOcUfBxd+Tiq4npQyGKjBpyqVk5OWgGeFaGAwTWfZDNIFf+V85RlNdRW0KXKnq wfZzZN9LuCITDMPowsW/Nipex6gkdp+h3TrI2cn9tgb982ftgx1MDKSQRZKCkif6rQPs SIrLoI3UAV3Z75qp+G9cKPI5zrjNJaj3k6B/+1ulHmzumVnICLBlUYkkgw62tagzti5+ aZ5g== X-Received: by 10.50.82.2 with SMTP id e2mr357388igy.8.1369148277506; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:57:57 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.6.193 with SMTP id d1ls3088814iga.33.canary; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:57:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.26.226 with SMTP id o2mr296411pag.1.1369148277099; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net. [212.227.15.19]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id cw1si476937pbb.0.2013.05.21.07.57.56 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.19; Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.4]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MIjWo-1Ucb5Y09ai-002IVH for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 16:57:56 +0200 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 21 May 2013 14:57:55 -0000 Received: from p54AF4323.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.2.100]) [84.175.67.35] by mail.gmx.net (mp004) with SMTP; 21 May 2013 16:57:55 +0200 X-Authenticated: #54293076 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+NR50aLjSNK4RlSfdDw8aNusAfh5tT+H2RCp+WsY Mtm2sv8G8oJuq3 Message-ID: <519B8B71.90800@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 16:57:53 +0200 From: selpa'i User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] questions about lojban References: <20130520214048.GA3114@samsa.fritz.box> <20130520221213.GB3114@samsa.fritz.box> <519B59B4.8020404@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Original-Sender: seladwa@gmx.de X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.19 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=seladwa@gmx.de Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010904070200070008090301" X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 1 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: la .aionys. cu cusku di'e > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:55 AM, selpa'i > wrote: > > On 21.05.2013 13 :25, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > > selpa'i wrote: > > That's exactly the part that got changed in December 2011, > when the > sentence "When an outer quantifier is used without an > inner quantifier, > ''lo'' can be omitted." was removed. This means that "PA > broda = PA lo > broda" *was* part of the original BPFK-approved proposal > from '04. (the > recent change wasn't followed by another round of voting > of course) > > > Who had the authority to make such a change? > > > xorxes made that change after being asked to do so. I think PC was > complaining. > > > If it isn't voted on, the change is not official, and as you > can see, > people won't understand what you mean. That is WHY it is > supposed to > be hard to make changes, and why they are supposed to be strictly > controlled. > > > Of course, but there is no institution left to vote on such things > right now, is there? > > > Yes, there is. It's called the BPFK. [...] Content analysis details: (0.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (seladwa[at]gmx.de) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: googlegroups.com] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010904070200070008090301 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed la .aionys. cu cusku di'e > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:55 AM, selpa'i > wrote: > > On 21.05.2013 13 :25, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > > selpa'i wrote: > > That's exactly the part that got changed in December 2011, > when the > sentence "When an outer quantifier is used without an > inner quantifier, > ''lo'' can be omitted." was removed. This means that "PA > broda = PA lo > broda" *was* part of the original BPFK-approved proposal > from '04. (the > recent change wasn't followed by another round of voting > of course) > > > Who had the authority to make such a change? > > > xorxes made that change after being asked to do so. I think PC was > complaining. > > > If it isn't voted on, the change is not official, and as you > can see, > people won't understand what you mean. That is WHY it is > supposed to > be hard to make changes, and why they are supposed to be strictly > controlled. > > > Of course, but there is no institution left to vote on such things > right now, is there? > > > Yes, there is. It's called the BPFK. The BPFK is out of business, that was my point. The BPFK is not in a state where it can vote. "Yes, there was. It was called the BPFK." > [snip] I assume you posted the lengthy explanation about the BPFK's duties not to educate me, but to explain it to the general audience on the beginners list. > Whether or not this discussion belongs in the Beginner's list, > obviously the above information does, since what should be common > knowledge apparently isn't. What should be common knowledge is not that there is such a thing as the BPFK, but that it is dead now. It seems more useful to create a new taskforce (it might end up having the same name, but certainly not the same members) as soon as CLL1.1 is done. mu'o mi'e la selpa'i -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. --------------010904070200070008090301 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
la .aionys. cu cusku di'e
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:55 AM, selpa'i <m3o@plasmatix.com> wrote:
On 21.05.2013 13:25, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
selpa'i wrote:
That's exactly the part that got changed in December 2011, when the
sentence "When an outer quantifier is used without an inner quantifier,
''lo'' can be omitted." was removed. This means that "PA broda = PA lo
broda" *was* part of the original BPFK-approved proposal from '04. (the
recent change wasn't followed by another round of voting of course)

Who had the authority to make such a change?

xorxes made that change after being asked to do so. I think PC was complaining.


If it isn't voted on, the change is not official, and as you can see,
people won't understand what you mean. That is WHY it is supposed to
be hard to make changes, and why they are supposed to be strictly
controlled.

Of course, but there is no institution left to vote on such things right now, is there?

Yes, there is. It's called the BPFK.

The BPFK is out of business, that was my point. The BPFK is not in a state where it can vote.
"Yes, there was. It was called the BPFK."

[snip]

I assume you posted the lengthy explanation about the BPFK's duties not to educate me, but to explain it to the general audience on the beginners list.

Whether or not this discussion belongs in the Beginner's list, obviously the above information does, since what should be common knowledge apparently isn't.

What should be common knowledge is not that there is such a thing as the BPFK, but that it is dead now. It seems more useful to create a new taskforce (it might end up having the same name, but certainly not the same members) as soon as CLL1.1 is done.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 
--------------010904070200070008090301--