From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Nov 09 14:12:24 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:12:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GiI7x-0004uX-8L for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:12:05 -0800 Received: from centrmmtao02.cox.net ([70.168.83.82]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GiI7r-0004tu-3L for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:12:05 -0800 Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by centrmmtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.03 201-2131-130-104-20060516) with ESMTP id <20061109221201.VTMX19547.centrmmtao02.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:12:01 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([72.192.234.183]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id kmB51V0093y5FKc0000000; Thu, 09 Nov 2006 17:11:07 -0500 Message-ID: <4553A799.5010907@lojban.org> Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 17:11:37 -0500 From: Bob LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <2d3df92a0611061040o5b0781c0o3df414476a3e0b68@mail.gmail.com> <200611081049.40483.colin.wright@denbridgemarine.com> <45533464.7080901@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [lojban] Re: livejournal discrimination X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 13005 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Hugh O'Byrne wrote: > On 11/9/06, *Bob LeChevalier* > wrote: > My two cents on a well written argument (I say this up front before > blasting that argument): > > Thank you. I was having some fun with your argument too, until I found > it boiled down to something really quite simple. > > I had thought the Lojban community was more one of rules than of > personality. There are few rules in this community (as opposed to the language itself). There are lots of strong (and strong-willed) personalities. > The arguments against lOkadin's style seem based on > personal preferences and individuals' conjectures; Yes. But in language usage, those things are critical. > not on the content of the CLL or any canon Lojban document. I can't say whether he follows CLL, since I don't try to read his posts. > Oh, and by the way: > > > Colin Fine, a skilled Lojbanist, tried LOkadin's trick of writing > without spaces back in 1992 > > That would have been GREAT information to *start* with!!! He could have asked before starting. > You have the benefit of knowing how a previous traveller down this path fared, > lOkadin doesn't. Now, he knows that a respected Lojbanist (at least for > a time) saw some value in the approach, too; Now *you* are guilty of presuming Colin's motivations. It's been 14 or 15 years so I can't be sure I remember them, but Colin wasn't a reformer. > that's probably good news > for him. If he cares to research some history, he can learn more, > rather than being sat on by the crowd. Research before action is a good thing. > Incidentally, I find the following pieces to be improper conduct in a > place of rational debate: > > As a broader principle, if a language and its usage responds to every > whim of fashion, then there are soon no standards for correctness. > > That is a valid broader principle. However, this thread is not about > "every whim", it is about one approach. YOU brought in fashion as if it were relevant. > It is invalid to use this as an underpinning argument against an individual approach. Then it is invalid to use it as an argument in favor of those who want to do something novel. Using your words, if being out of step with the latest whim of fashion means that a Lojbanist is "silly, out-of-touch, not groovin' with the beat of the next generation", then I hope that most Lojbanists are forever "silly, out-of-touch, not groovin' with the beat of the next generation". I certainly will be. > At this point, change is a bad thing. Especially change merely for the > sake of doing something different. > > Do you know that his motivation is so trivial as "merely for the sake of > doing something different"? If he had a better motivation, then he has plenty of opportunity to offer it. But frankly I am not interested in his motivations. I am interested in promoting good Lojban usage and interaction, and his postings don't; they promote argument over orthography. > You belittle his motivations without understanding them. I am being honest about my opinion. Brutally honest, perhaps. But I would have stayed silent if this had gone on. LOkadin is at risk of being classified as another "tinkit" (who recently reappeared for a short while after an earlier spate of promoting hexadecimal Lojban as a reform), albeit one who is trying to post in Lojban. Perhaps if he hadn't started this so soon after tinkit, I wouldn't feel so strongly. But I am not in the mood right now to cater to those who want to do things differently. I will recognize their right to do so, but again I don't much care about his motives, only his results. (When I say "merely for the sake of doing something different", that is a reference to his results at least as much as his motivations). > This type of implication on his character is underhanded and out of order. YOU are the one presuming some implication on his character. I don't know the man. I only know what I see of his work, and that is all that matters to me. > Early Lojbanist Michael Helsem, a poet, got a reputation for writing... > > His writing was useful mostly as a bad example > > "A person wrote poor Lojban. Not many people read his work. He > improved, then more people read his work." > > That is the extent of the content of the above section, that is valid to > the topic at hand. No. Because what is also valid is that the approach he used to achieve what he did generated a lot of negatives, mostly not to his face because for a long time he did not have net access. > It is such a simple story, I doubt it needed be > told, even to lOkadin. All it does is throw a negative tone on the > thread which it has not earned, Of course it has. The topic of alternatives to ANYTHING in Lojban tends to get negatives from me, if I get to the point of responding at all. As I said, I have a justified reputation as being obstructionist. I expect to continue to be so, which is one reason why I consented to step down from leadership. > and put lOkadin in the shadow of the > villified Helsem. If you have emotional baggage regarding Helsem, even > if lOkadin reminds you of him, this is not the place to unload it. Actually, I have little emotional baggage regarding Helsem (tinkit on the other hand is fresh to mind). I just want to see as little energy wasted on unwanted experimentation as possible, and even less wasted on arguing about it, which is what was happening when I posted. > LOkadin is not being nearly as avant garde > as he might think. > > Did he claim to be avant-garde? "might". Again I am referring to YOUR reference to fashion. > Baselessly attributing unflattering > motivations to your opponent is *very* poor debating style. To some people, being accused of being avant garde is quite a compliment. However, I will admit that I'm not trying to flatter anyone. Nor am I really interested in debate, stylistically or otherwise. If my expressions get people so pissed off at me that they don't want to talk about LOkadin any more, then my purposes will be served. > You can make good arguments without turning a conclusion into a premise, My conclusion *is* my premise. I don't need good reasons. I am expressing my own reaction to what you posted. I won't pretend that all of my reaction is rational; I've learned to recognize and value the irrational aspects of my nature. (Others should do so as well; if I had been fully rational, I would never have challenged JCB and started Lojban). > and without veiled insults. Veiled? You seemed to be accusing me of being openly insulting, which I was. I am seldom in the mood to veil my insults, though sometimes I can be "diplomatic". > As an expression of respect, I say you can rise above these rhetorical devices. That presumes that I *want* to express respect. In this community, respect is earned through actions, and is not automatic. LOkadin gets some respect by trying to post in what may be Lojban. He squanders that respect by posting in variant orthography. I *was* rising above these rhetorical devices for a few days - by not posting. lojbab To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.