From sentto-44114-18650-1046292988-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Wed Feb 26 12:57:06 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:57:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from n20.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.76]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 18o8bs-0002Tw-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:57:01 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-18650-1046292988-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.196] by n20.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Feb 2003 20:56:29 -0000 X-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 26 Feb 2003 20:56:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 67919 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 20:56:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Feb 2003 20:56:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 20:56:28 -0000 Received: from craig [209.42.200.67] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-7.13) id A9F834001DA; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:56:24 -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: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:56:39 -0500 Subject: [lojban] Re: Nick will be with you shortly Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 4162 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 >IIRC, nobody, except possibly Nick, has an individual power of veto. My recollection had been that every BPFK member had a veto. >a talent for it), & if it gives rise to more questions & discussion then that >will end up as a recapitulation of debates that already happened on >Jboske. I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, but if it is allowed to, then If a thing has already been discussed on jboske, then it ought to be sufficient for someone to post a summary of that. >we must accept that BF is a longhaul operation, rather than something >that should have been over by May. Oh, I'm sure. But it would be better to ONLY patch genuine problems with the language, but patch them slowly, than to fix everything anyone dislikes. To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/