From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Wed Feb 26 15:37:02 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:37:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18oB6f-0004I4-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:36:57 -0800 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:36:57 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Nick will be with you shortly Message-ID: <20030226233657.GE17377@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 4173 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:49:30PM -0500, Craig wrote: > >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; Even if the change is backwards compatible and other people see a problem? -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u crepu le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi