From rmcivor@macsrule.com Tue Dec 10 16:47:21 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:47:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-server2.tampabay.rr.com ([65.32.1.39])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 18Lv1v-0008V0-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:47:15 -0800
Received: from macsrule.com (85.78.33.65.cfl.rr.com [65.33.78.85])
	by smtp-server2.tampabay.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gBB0lETd016279
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:47:14 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:47:16 -0500
Subject: [lojban] Re: let's get rid of this lojban == loglan crap (was Re: tags)
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: <83AB0CC0-0C8E-11D7-A99A-000393629ED4@uic.edu>
Message-Id: <18417DFE-0CA2-11D7-AC7F-00039362FD2A@macsrule.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548)
X-archive-position: 3431
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 Mardi, déce 10, 2002, at 17:27 US/Eastern, Steven Belknap wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 12:55  PM, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 01:13:30PM +0200, robin wrote:
>>> Adam Raizen wrote:
>>>> la djorden. cusku di'e
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not a LLG member, so I can't official propose this for the next
>>>>> meeting (afaik).  However, as a member of the community I would 
>>>>> like
>>>>> to ask that at the next LLG meeting the "lojban is loglan" 
>>>>> statement
>>>>> be considered for revokation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There was a very difficult and expensive legal battle fought over
>>>> this, and those who participated in it would probably not want their
>>>> effort to be nullified, and historically Lojban is related to 
>>>> Loglan,
>>>> so at least for those reasons it would probably be difficult to
>>>> straight-out revoke the "lojban is loglan" statement. I think that a
>>>> clarification is in order, though.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How about something like "Lojban is a variant of Loglan".  Or
>>> "development" or whatever.
>>
>> Sounds good to me.
>>
>> -Robin
>
> I like John Cowan's better: "lojban is a Loglan."
>
	So do I.  I don't think any logli (TLI Loglanist) that has looked at 
Lojban would disagree.

Robert McIvor