From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Wed Feb 26 15:52:58 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:52:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18oBM4-0004Vf-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:52:52 -0800 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:52:52 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Nick will be with you shortly Message-ID: <20030226235252.GC16549@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20030226030837.GA18158@allusion.net> <20030226194836.GJ17377@digitalkingdom.org> <20030226235244.GA22288@allusion.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030226235244.GA22288@allusion.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 4179 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 Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 05:52:44PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 11:48:36AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:08:38PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote: > > > 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; 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. > > > > > > There is no problem with loi. > > > > Since more than one competent lojbanist disagrees with you, you are > > prima facia wrong, even if all your points are correct. > > Huh? This is a fallacy (argumentum ad populum). Statements have a > particular truth value regardless of what we believe about them. Whether or not there is a problem with lojban is defined by the opinions of lojbanists, nothing more, nothing less. Enough lojbanists have expressed the opinion that there is a problem that their beliefs mean that there is 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