From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Mar 03 16:25:19 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:25:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JWKy6-0005rG-Km for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:25:18 -0800 Received: from squid17.laughingsquid.net ([72.32.93.144]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JWKy2-0005r8-Fu for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:25:18 -0800 Received: (qmail 22207 invoked by uid 48); 3 Mar 2008 16:25:04 -0800 Received: from c-75-68-233-37.hsd1.vt.comcast.net (c-75-68-233-37.hsd1.vt.comcast.net [75.68.233.37]) by webmail.ixkey.info (Horde MIME library) with HTTP; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:25:04 -0800 Message-ID: <20080303162504.5dp09e6xpsow8808@webmail.ixkey.info> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:25:04 -0800 From: mungojelly@ixkey.info To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: dates, controversy, and newbies References: <737b61f30802011852p3a6b3115n2562711f83535a7e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <737b61f30802011852p3a6b3115n2562711f83535a7e@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.1.5) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 14205 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mungojelly@ixkey.info Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Quoting Chris Capel : > I could just pick a side, but given the possible influence I might > have, that feels like a big overreach. (I feel your pain, Nick.) If > usage hasn't settled anything yet (and I wouldn't think it has) then > what should I do? Teach the controversy? Even that option has the > downside of confusing and discouraging newbies, but perhaps it's not > avoidable at this stage in Lojban's development. I think that teaching the controversy could be appealing, depending on how it's spun. The truth is that Lojban is a language which is still very much under development, even though large parts of it are established. We should be very clear to ninpre about what isn't likely to change-- gismu, for instance, which every ninpre seems to have a proposal about-- and what is likely to change, and therefore might be open to their ideas. Pitch it that way: Lojban Wants YOU to get involved with these issues, and help determine the course of a living human language. :) mu'o mi'e la bret. 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.