From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Sat May 24 05:20:51 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 24 May 2003 05:20:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41906.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.157]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19JY0w-00009o-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 24 May 2003 05:20:42 -0700 Message-ID: <20030524122011.15832.qmail@web41906.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.69.5.103] by web41906.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 24 May 2003 05:20:11 PDT Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 05:20:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Jorge "Llambías" Subject: [lojban] Re: bpfk vs jbovlaste To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <0D6B1A8E-8DD3-11D7-AC97-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 5376 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list la nitcion cusku di'e > And the bottom line is, if people want canonical expressions for > 'parasite', they have to propose them to jbovlaste, and give people a > canonical alternative. Very wise words. > The bpfk in my view has the same task with > Jorge's non-baseline usages. I think Jorge is damaging Lojban by > deviating from the baseline, but if I am to combat this legitimately, I > need to provide Jorge with baseline-compatible alternatives, so that he > can say what he legitimately needs to say. Right. I don't agree I'm damaging Lojban with my usage, obviously. I think my non-baseline compliant usage is much more beneficial to Lojban than all the baseline compliant non-usage put together. Also, I think that my usage happens to be more baseline compliant than most people's, even though baseline compliance is not a high priority for me. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com