From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Fri Nov  5 19:16:37 1993
Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sat, 6 Nov 1993 00:20:00 -0500
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sat, 6 Nov 1993 00:19:56 -0500
Message-Id: <199311060519.AA00900@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)    with BSMTP id 3386; Sat, 06 Nov 93 00:19:46 EST
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with  BSMTP id 9780; Sat, 06 Nov 93 00:19:34 EDT
Date:         Sat, 6 Nov 1993 00:16:37 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: re'enai
To:         C.J.Fine@bradford.ac.uk
Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I think I disagree on this.  We want to choose scales that are most useful.
My envisioning of re'enai is a situation where someone says a remark
calculated to violate standard religious atmosphere/connotatyions/conventions.

I do not mean "sacrilege" as an accusation of someone elses sacrilege.
How about Galileo's "It still moves re'enai"?

non-spirittual would be re'ecu'i to me - something that simpoly does not
register on the rleigious scale.

lojbab