From sentto-44114-18638-1046227765-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Tue Feb 25 18:50:05 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:50:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from n35.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.103]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 18nrdt-0005FG-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:49:57 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-18638-1046227765-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.199] by n35.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Feb 2003 02:49:26 -0000 X-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 26 Feb 2003 02:49:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 68913 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 02:49:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Feb 2003 02:49:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 02:49:24 -0000 Received: from craig [209.42.200.67] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-7.13) id AB322C30196; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:49:22 -0500 To: Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com [209.42.200.67] From: "Craig" X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl 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: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:49:30 -0500 Subject: [lojban] Re: Nick will be with you shortly Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 4150 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ragnarok@pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list >is too baroque to be acceptable (or that there is no problem with >{loi} to be solved), but I'll just have to lump it. I don't know what the problem with {loi} is, and when the BPFK appears and we all get a veto I will veto any change to {loi} that doesn't demonstrate that there is one. In fact, I plan to veto any change to the language that doesn't solve a problem which is either obvious or explained in the proposal; the BPFK should not act lightly. But, if the jposkepre have been able to put much effort into {loi}, then I'm sure there is a problem and that their proposal will explain it to us. To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/