From sentto-44114-17010-1036662052-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Thu Nov 07 01:41:30 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 07 Nov 2002 01:41:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from n7.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.91]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 189jAD-0001kB-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 01:41:25 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-17010-1036662052-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.197] by n7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Nov 2002 09:40:52 -0000 X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 7 Nov 2002 09:40:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 97844 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2002 09:40:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Nov 2002 09:40:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m06.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.161) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Nov 2002 09:40:51 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.142.2243724 (25711) for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 04:40:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <142.2243724.2afb8f1f@aol.com> To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 8.0 for Windows US sub 230 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 04:40:47 EST Subject: [lojban] Re: What the heck is this crap? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_142.2243724.2afb8f1f_boundary" X-archive-position: 2485 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: pycyn@aol.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_142.2243724.2afb8f1f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/6/2002 5:41:31 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: << > I have in fact been making an effort to document jboske stuff on the > wiki. I'm sure I've missed tons of stuff, because there's so much > of it, and I don't document stuff where no clear majoritarian view > emerges. But at least I'm trying, and hopefully others will be too. >> Best of British luck to you! Maybe the wiki is a good place to do this, since it is marginally harder to respond with another version of an old argument again. << The secret is to try to summarize not the entire discussion, but only the eventual conclusions. >> Well, of late there have been precious few conclusions that are worth summarizing, though just laying out the possibilities would be some help. The really important thing, I think, however is to lay out the arguments so that, when the damn thing comes up again (and it will, despite our efforts), we can just say -- as xod is now doing -- see paragraph 3 or whatever. Otherwise, each newby will think he has found a new objection and launch sos again. Of course, every once in a while someone does find a new objection and that has to be dealt with -- but it would be nice to deal with the new piece without having to refight the old stuff over and over. --part1_142.2243724.2afb8f1f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/6/2002 5:41:31 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:
<<

I have in fact been making an effort to document jboske stuff on the
wiki. I'm sure I've missed tons of stuff, because there's so much
of it, and I don't document stuff where no clear majoritarian view
emerges. But at least I'm trying, and hopefully others will be too.

>>
Best of British luck to you! Maybe the wiki is a good place to do this, since it is marginally harder to respond with another version of an old argument again.

<<
The secret is to try to summarize not the entire discussion, but only
the eventual conclusions.
>>
Well, of late there have been precious few conclusions that are worth summarizing, though just laying out the possibilities would be some help. The really important thing, I think, however is to lay out the arguments so that, when the damn thing comes up again (and it will, despite our efforts), we can just say -- as xod is now doing -- see paragraph 3 or whatever. Otherwise, each newby will think he has found a new objection and launch sos again. Of course, every once in a while someone does find a new objection and that has to be dealt with -- but it would be nice to deal with the new piece without having to refight the old stuff over and over.
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--part1_142.2243724.2afb8f1f_boundary--