From rspeer@MIT.EDU Sun May 30 13:22:52 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 30 May 2004 13:23:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fort-point-station.mit.edu ([18.7.7.76]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.32) id 1BUWpC-0005Iu-Jm for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 30 May 2004 13:22:32 -0700 Received: from grand-central-station.mit.edu (GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.82]) by fort-point-station.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with ESMTP id i4UKMPNm029471 for ; Sun, 30 May 2004 16:22:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.86]) by grand-central-station.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with ESMTP id i4UKMOqV001792 for ; Sun, 30 May 2004 16:22:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from torg.mit.edu (TORG.MIT.EDU [18.208.0.57]) ) by melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id i4UKMNRg012521 for ; Sun, 30 May 2004 16:22:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rob by torg.mit.edu with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1BUWpR-0005l8-00 for ; Sun, 30 May 2004 16:22:45 -0400 Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 16:22:45 -0400 From: Rob Speer To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Forget XS, let's go back to XS. Message-ID: <20040530202245.GD21769@mit.edu> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20040530184511.GA21387@mit.edu> <20040530192759.GR818@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040530192759.GR818@chain.digitalkingdom.org> X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-archive-position: 8002 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rspeer@MIT.EDU Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 12:27:59PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 02:45:11PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote: > > And XS right now is trying to solve all of them in one fell swoop. As > > I understand it, it's saying: > > > > "{lo} is defined as the intensional article, and it already means > > everything you want it to mean." > > First of all, this shouldn't be here, it should be on the BPFK/Wiki > lists. Why shouldn't it be here? Sure, I'm putting it on the Wiki now after seeing a bit of support for it, but why shouldn't I propose it on the main list first before codifying it? Everyone on the BPFK/Wiki lists is on the main list. Also, posting on the main list goes along with my general intent, which is that the gadri discussion should be accessible to normal people, including those not following the BPFK's every move. > Secondly, that doesn't, in any way, resemble what xorxes' proposal is. You mean, aside from xorxes re-stating his proposal as exactly the words "{lo} is defined as the intensional article", and the numerous things he has said in its defense that amount to "{lo} already means everything you want it to mean"? -- Rob Speer