Received-SPF: none (google.com: lojbab@lojban.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=68.230.241.216;
Message-ID: <541638E5.6040806@lojban.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 20:55:01 -0400
From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] the future of Lojban's leadership
References: <25B055499F67420FA34794323F9A95AB@gmail.com>	<540B374A.9040409@lojban.org>	<CAO7bV+gQQtt4qtnrj6LUWpj5rv5Qpkoy3GaKsg+CewG3-Mw+OA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMDmBpHS_h8ui41oZnKO4kt13KdVCodTa+crWzo3E9hyyBummg@mail.gmail.com>	<540B8D1B.8050807@gmail.com>	<540F391F.5050002@lojban.org>	<540F6802.3070709@gmail.com>	<5410B7BF.9030005@lojban.org>	<5411FCE9.3090907@lojban.org>	<5414B97E.8050502@lojban.org>	<CAO7bV+gQ1=J2GBUVmQ=7PSmQ2PtVgL4XxF7FbwQzSf1wsei5Hw@mail.gmail.com> <qusT1o00B56Cr6M01usU9m>
In-Reply-To: <qusT1o00B56Cr6M01usU9m>
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: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

On 9/14/2014 2:52 AM, Dustin Lacewell wrote:
> "and in any case requires extra learning (and possibly unlearning, which
> is the real bugaboo)"
>
> Which is the exact result that happens with changes borne through
> 'usage' as you say.

Changes through usage are absorbed slowly, and generally don't 
invalidate prior usage (though such may seem quaint).

> But relearning or 'extra learning' is fine,

It isn't fine.

> "We cannot prevent such dialectization, and I wouldn't want to try.  But
> we also shouldn't allow one particular group/dialect dictate changes to
> everyone else, especially since the rest of us didn't experience
> whatever motivated your change."
>
> You're just arbitrarily deciding that changes borne from a single
> community simply shouldn't be considered

At this point, I advocate that changes simply shouldn't be considered, 
period.  We need to document the status quo ante your changes, which is 
the language the rest of us think we are speaking, without the changes.

Go ahead and use your dialect if you wish, and ideally document what you 
think has changed in the form of change pages to CLL (or some other 
format useful to others).  At some point, we hope, the BPFK will be able 
and willing to deal with them.  If you've documented them well, you'll 
be more likely to convince people.

> Yeah this is so completely agreeable.

So far in this message, you seem to be trying to be as disagreeable as 
possible.

> I mean especially since
> we're dictating these changes on everyone else and this thread didn't
> start with a public announcement of intention and an invitation for the
> entire community to remark and participate.

Even if it did, it would be irrelevant.  This forum isn't the place to 
decide on changes.  And only a small fraction of the community reads 
this forum (or any other one, for that matter).  The ONLY way to make a 
change "stick" would be to change the master baseline documents, and 
make the set of changes available for free on line, but even that isn't 
going to promulgate changes very quickly, because most people won't see 
the changes for a good while.

> But I guess we didn't need the voice of the entire community because we have you.

The "entire community" doesn't have a voice.  But LLG is as close as we 
have to a representation of that community, and yes, I am the stuckee 
who is currently leading LLG, and thus I do speak for it to some extent. 
  Others are free to disagree, of course, but they likely have no valid 
claim to speak for "the community".

> "The original intent was that after the baseline"
>
> Yeah great. By reiterating unfulfilled 'intention's' we can just avoid
> the entire issue completely, right?

What issue?

> I mean -you're- not going to make good on those intentions are you?

It isn't my role to do so, as you would understand if you had a clue.

> I didn't think so. So has your
> involvement in the project been reduced to just gridlocking the project
> with this tactic?

It seems that my role has been reduced to insulting obnoxious posters 
who are a bit too full of themselves.

> "Your usage.  Not that of others."
>
> What others? Where is this mystical group of lojbanists that actually
> matter?

All over the world.

> Where are they either finishing your baseline, or prompting the
> community for progress like we are? They don't exist.

Your opinion and reality have nothing in common.

> You just keep
> referring to these mythical CLL holders as if owning a CLL somehow
> trumps other people in the community.

It gives them a valid stake.

> I own a CLL. Who cares? It
> literally has nothing to do with what happens to the language after its
> release.

It has quite a lot, given that most people think that CLL defines the 
language.

> As if, every non-fiction book I bought, I decided to lambast
> the related fields for progressing and outmoding my book.

I can believe that you would do so.

> I could see
> you raising this point a year or few after the CLL was released but now
> this argument is insane.

No more insane now than it was then.

> "And I have to consider that any given change (as opposed to addition)
> potentially invalidates all the ever-growing corpus of text that is
> recorded before."
>
> Usage exists to be eventually invalidated.

Nope.

> Look at, gee, I don't know, the entire corpus of any language historically?

Shakespeare is still considered quite valid some 400 years later.

> "That's nice. But your reality isn't everyone's."
>
> You're responding to me describing our community.

As far as I am considered, you represent only YOU.  I don't recognize 
your claim to represent anyone else.  And your opinion is worth no more 
than anyone else's.

> I wasn't extrapolating
> the work and daily utilization of lojban to any other community.

Actually you were.  If you weren't then you wouldn't have bothered posting.

> But this statement is just exemplary to expose just
> how disparaging you are to those you're not familiar with who's
> opinion's you disagree with.

Those who come across as rude, yes.

> What is YOUR lojban reality Lojbab? Do you even have one?

The question is meaningless to me.

> Is it more or less relevant to ours or literally any
> community using lojban today?

Probably not, since it isn't relevant to me.

> But you can discount entire communities

No, just individuals who claim to represent entire communities, in 
postings such as yours.

> because you're the maladjusted leader. Get over yourself

I did that a couple decades ago.

> and stop acting
> like you have some relevancy that can dictate who's usage of Lojban is
> legitimate

I may have such relevancy, or I may not.  But if I don't, then certainly 
you don't.

> "Just consider that someone who has been working on this project for
> 30-odd years just might know something that you haven't yet
> experienced.  You are the one who offends me (and more importantly the
> rest of the community), by saying that my/our experience isn't valid
> while yours is."
>
> Your'e replying to me admonishing you for being so distastefully
> shrugging off our community.

I'm admonishing you for being an ass.

> This isn't a response to some objective
> statement about the language or grammar or some view requiring
> expertise.

> So because you're our president and and have existing
> experience with the language means that you can arrogantly and pompously
> disregard any part of the community you'd like

No. I get to do very little that I'd like, actually.  I expect to be 
held accountable for my actions as President.

> What was I thinking?

I have no idea.

> "And your argument isn't especially new."
>
> What exactly is our 'argument'?

YOUR argument is that of a single person.

> That we've been using the language for a long time consistently,

So you say.

> translating works

So you say.

> and teaching new comers

So you say.

> and we have some retrospective on how to improve things and make things
> slightly easier or more natural?

You might.  But with you doing the talking, I for one am not likely to care.

> What the hell are you talking about? My
> position is basically this from the beginning: 1) "Hey guys, we have a
> substantial backlog of observed experiments in the language

They aren't documented, and hence do not exist as far as the rest of us 
are concerned.

> and since no one is leading the language,

No one SHOULD lead the language.

Robin is leading the language documentation effort, however.  If you 
have contributed to that effort, I am unaware of it.

> we propose this system for reviewing and making public a process for incremental mutation to the reference.

We have a system.  Live with it, or not if you prefer.

> 2) "Holy shit lojbab is an arrogant disconnected prick."

Possibly.

> "That's very nice.  But you still aren't the entirety of the language
> community, and you don't have the right to dictate to the rest of us
> (any more than I have the right to dictate to you)."
>
> Again who does?

No one.

> Which part of the community has valid experience useful
> for contemplating and making considerations for what works and doesn't?

No one.

> When the hell did we announce

You (singular) announced something.

> "I have no idea how legitimate your concerns are"
>
> Of course you don't! Because instead of responding to the original
> prompt to the community to move things into a new active process for
> review and integration

I don't think that the community is interested in your new active 
process, whatever it may be.

> You're insane and you're wrong. You're hurting the language more than
> anyone.

If I am, then likely I won't be reelected as President, assuming that 
there is someone else insane enough to want the job who is at least 
somewhat less "wrong".  I wasn't much bothered the last time this 
happened.  Herding cats isn't the easiest of jobs.

But if you've got such a wonderful independent speaking and using 
community, then I rather doubt that I have the slightest capability of 
hurting YOUR language, assuming that I wanted to.

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.