Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 2001:470:8:42:2c0:f0ff:fe3b:b5b5 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of phma@bezitopo.org) client-ip=2001:470:8:42:2c0:f0ff:fe3b:b5b5;
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@bezitopo.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:43:23 -0400
Message-ID: <4765457.N8ok8LCe9x@caracal>
User-Agent: KMail/4.8.5 (Linux/3.2.0-44-generic; KDE/4.8.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <51B5AACD.8040106@gmx.de>
References: <51A6685C.3010505@lojban.org> <1572136.Rc9a1FkyGG@caracal> <51B5AACD.8040106@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
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
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:  On Monday, June 10, 2013 12:30:37 selpa'i wrote: > la .pier.
    cu cusku di'e > > > I oppose this merge both before and after the baseline.
    > > Please explain your reasons so that they can be considered and/or addressed.
    [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 -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]
  0.1 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

On Monday, June 10, 2013 12:30:37 selpa'i wrote:
> la .pier. cu cusku di'e
> 
> > I oppose this merge both before and after the baseline.
> 
> Please explain your reasons so that they can be considered and/or addressed.

I did already. There is no reason to even think of such a radical change. What 
we need to discuss is vocabulary, to make more of it.

Pierre
-- 
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci

-- 
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.