From rmcivor@macsrule.com Mon Dec 09 17:05:33 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:05:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-server1.tampabay.rr.com ([65.32.1.34])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 18LYq1-0004Sc-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:05:29 -0800
Received: from macsrule.com (85.78.33.65.cfl.rr.com [65.33.78.85])
	by smtp-server1.tampabay.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gBA15Rdt025502
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 20:05:28 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 20:06:08 -0500
Subject: [lojban] Re: name of the language
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548)
From: Robert McIvor <rmcivor@macsrule.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis
In-Reply-To: <20021209203139.GT6170@digitalkingdom.org>
Message-Id: <910548E2-0BDB-11D7-A080-00039362FD2A@macsrule.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548)
X-archive-position: 3365
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: rmcivor@macsrule.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


On Lundi, déce 9, 2002, at 15:31 US/Eastern, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 02:25:41PM -0600, Steven Belknap wrote:
>> For those concerned about "poaching," check out the html code for
>> Loglan.org and lojban.org. Note that the content meta tags for
>> lojban.org do not mention Loglan, while those for Loglan.org do
>> mention  lojban! The purpose of the meta content tag is to help people
>> find us  with google and other search engines. There is absolutely
>> nothing wrong  with putting "Loglan" in the content list for
>> lojban.org. I guess that  is why lojban gets no higher than 13th on
>> google, while the first 12  hits are all Loglan sites.
>>
>> Um, Robin?
>
> I think that loglan.org mentioning lojban is *highly* innappropriate, 
> as
> the reverse would be for us.  I will bow to the boards' will in this,
> however.
>

	I wonder why you think it inappropriate, let alone "highly" 
inappropriate.
Incidentally, JCB never complained about the reference to Lojban on our
page.