Received-SPF: none (google.com: lojbab@lojban.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=68.230.241.216;
Message-ID: <53823241.5020708@lojban.org>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 14:11:13 -0400
From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org>
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Balningau: The Great Update
References: <53800942.9030407@lojban.org>	<CAO7bV+j4=md2oKaN_i6u68YS7hEzjt_iUkqGkiADRCz21NF_Ww@mail.gmail.com>	<1400948010.93944.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>	<CAO7tK2cuBS+5bqDuf_fFYid5fRHepXK_S6_9cebqSZ0gZcBgMw@mail.gmail.com>	<53D0F569-A434-4953-9A1A-3F8D2001A8BB@yahoo.com> <CAO7tK2cjetXAJ+D8zjNqRpseindts2=hRkNJrh5giO6rYAvY0Q@mail.gmail.com> <5380F63E.3070006@gmx.de> <5wnJ1o00G56Cr6M01wnKXB> <5381C5B0.1000304@lojban.org> <6BKF1o01b56Cr6M01BKG8J> <538215D3.5050703@lojban.org> <6Goi1o01J56Cr6M01Gojfl>
In-Reply-To: <6Goi1o01J56Cr6M01Gojfl>
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=UTF-8; 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:  On 5/25/2014 12:48 PM, selpa'i wrote: > la .lojbab. cu cusku
    di'e >>> Before you call this another claim without evidence, here is a thread
    >>> from 2010 about just that: >>> >>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/xn8hCt3Aagw
    >> >> I don't see anything under that topic even slightly relevant to the
    >> current discussion. It seems to be about whether people use the machine
    >> grammar in their heads when speaking Lojban. Though indeed most of the
    >> claims in said discussion were indeed without evidence. > > Please, did
    you even read the thread? [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 -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

On 5/25/2014 12:48 PM, selpa'i wrote:
> la .lojbab. cu cusku di'e
>>> Before you call this another claim without evidence, here is a thread
>>> from 2010 about just that:
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/xn8hCt3Aagw
>>
>> I don't see anything under that topic even slightly relevant to the
>> current discussion.  It seems to be about whether people use the machine
>> grammar in their heads when speaking Lojban.  Though indeed most of the
>> claims in said discussion were indeed without evidence.
>
> Please, did you even read the thread?

The link pointed to a page of several threaded discussions.  No essay 
from Robin on that page.  Only on closer look did I now notice that it 
was pointing to page 6, and there is indeed an essay on Robin there.  I 
don't have the time to reread the essay much less the thread.

> It's about Robin's essay which
> clearly states that he doesn't want usage to decide and that he wants a
> centralized, formalized language.

He's running byfy.  If he can produce such a thing, he has the authority 
to do so.  I haven't tried to stop him.

My personal opinion, even if I disagree with Robin, is only my opinion. 
  In my position as President, I act on behalf of the policies voted by 
the membership and directors, insofar as I am able.  And at age 60 and 
not in great health, I know I won't be around forever.  It'd be nice if 
the language and the organization supporting it survives my eventual 
departure, but I likely won't have much to say about it when I am not 
around anymore %^)

> The responses in the thread (in which
> you *did* participate) showed that pretty much everyone except you
> agreed with him. The situation hasn't changed since then, but feel free
> to ignore it further.

I probably will, since I saw nothing that requires action from me.  If 
it did, I suspect that Robin would have made a motion to that effect.

If Robin completes the prescription, that is what matters most.  Even if 
what he prescribes isn't exactly what I want him to prescribe.

> You clearly have no interest in acknowledging
> other people's ideals concerning the specification of Lojban even when
> they outnumber you

As you say, I responded to the thread.  That acknowledged what was said. 
  That does not mean that I am going to jump on board, especially since 
I have nothing useful to contribute.

> and include many of the most prominent Lojbanists of
> all time, for which *I* have more respect than anything else.

I have plenty of respect for Robin, and xorxes, and many others.  I 
don't have much respect for you and your group.

lojbab

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.