From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Mon May 26 09:22:29 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 26 May 2003 09:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web41901.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.152])
	by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 19KKjn-0006X7-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 09:22:15 -0700
Message-ID: <20030526145752.11688.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41901.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 26 May 2003 07:57:52 PDT
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 07:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: [lojban] Re: emotions
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030526104820.0337a720@pop.east.cox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 5415
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 lojbab cusku di'e
> > > >In any case, the best way to oppose these words is to provide
> > > >good canonical alternatives, as Nick said.
> > >
> > > Nora suggested that no noncanonical word should be allowed to be
> >added to
> > > the jbovlaste UNLESS a canonical (perhaps longer) alternative has
> >already
> > > been added.
> >
> >That seems to put the onus on the wrong party. If I wanted
> >{parji} to be adopted then I'd be tempted to enter an unappealing
> >canonical alternative so that it won't really compete with my
> >proposal.
> 
> One would hope that people would abide by the spirit of the rule, and not 
> play such games.

Even if they disagree with the spirit of the rule? Why would
you expect people to act against their convictions?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com