Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.19;
Message-ID: <51B4DD14.5080701@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:52:52 +0200
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
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] cmevla as a class of brivla
References: <51A6685C.3010505@lojban.org> <CAMKwHj3gpou-t-6wPOLP7TCXdGhVGU2z+H-z4g=yGJK8Yg2gEg@mail.gmail.com> <51A8680E.7040103@lojban.org> <CAMKwHj3+aWwW0E3QP271aRNP8oKMy9hNDipjypX6hhJkauM+_A@mail.gmail.com> <51A8F326.2020901@lojban.org> <51A8F89D.2040408@gmx.de> <51B00097.8080004@lojban.org> <51B06D24.6020102@gmx.de> <51B46762.8080509@lojban.org> <51B47305.4020704@gmx.de> <20130609133526.GD24964@samsa.fritz.box> <51B48B09.2080709@gmx.de> <51B4BAC4.8050505@lojban.org>
In-Reply-To: <51B4BAC4.8050505@lojban.org>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
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 .lojbab. cu cusku di'e > selpa'i wrote: >> la .van. cu
   cusku di'e >>> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 02:20:21PM +0200, selpa'i wrote: >>>>
    la .lojbab. cu cusku di'e >>>>> But that isn't the case for Lojban. >>>>
   >>>> You seem to be alone in thinking that (see other people's responses).
    >>> >>> Hold it right there. He's definitely not. It's just that some people
    >>> who produce most noise - not judging whether this is good or bad - on
    >>> this list >>> oppose it. That doesn't mean nobody else has the same opinion.
    >> >> Then they should speak up and add to the discussion. If, in discussion
    >> X, something gets decided, [...] 
 
 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
  0.1 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

la .lojbab. cu cusku di'e
> selpa'i wrote:
>> la .van. cu cusku di'e
>>> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 02:20:21PM +0200, selpa'i wrote:
>>>> la .lojbab. cu cusku di'e
>>>>> But that isn't the case for Lojban.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be alone in thinking that (see other people's responses).
>>>
>>> Hold it right there. He's definitely not. It's just that some people
>>> who produce most noise - not judging whether this is good or bad - on
>>> this list
>>> oppose it. That doesn't mean nobody else has the same opinion.
>>
>> Then they should speak up and add to the discussion. If, in discussion
>> X, something gets decided,

(a hypothetical discussion on a hypothetical list, could be the BPFK list)

> Lojban List is not the forum for *deciding* anything about Lojban.  That
> is what the byfy is for,

Maybe not for making *formal* decisions concerning changes of the 
language, but a discussion should hopefully be able to show us what the 
community wants, and what things we were (or would be) able to agree 
upon. Making some change official then is just paperwork (I know you're 
going to tell me it's more complicated than that, but voting on 
something that a prior discussion showed to be desired by the masses is 
not much more than a technicality in my eyes). I prefer discussions to 
be public so that everyone can participate. If 20 people voice their 
desire for a given change (say The Merge), I don't see why it should 
matter much where they voice it as long as it's in public. It will tell 
us that people want it to happen, and that's worth something, even if it 
does not by itself constitute a formal decision. Rather, it should act 
as a motivation for the people in charge to (re-)consider its adoption.

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.