Return-Path: Received: from access4.digex.net by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rhyX7-00001sC; Fri, 24 Feb 95 13:50 EET Received: by access4.digex.net id AA05165 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for veion@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi); Fri, 24 Feb 1995 06:49:32 -0500 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 06:49:32 -0500 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199502241149.AA05165@access4.digex.net> To: lojbab@access.digex.net, pcliffje@crl.com, veion@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi Subject: Re: Board decision needed on Loglan/Lojban reciprocity Content-Length: 660 Lines: 14 I'll get Nora's opinion, and maybe Tommy's opinion this weekend. My main "objection" to reciprocation is that we have no other links to other conlangs in the first place, whereass it sounds like Jennings is being inclusionary in including us. Being our only external link, it would put focus on TLI Loglan, whereass if we had a page linking to several other conlangs it would stand out less. But I am not sure I understand the psychology of Web-climbers weel enough to know what they would feel about this. Is it the norm that home pages have a bunch of links to othersites, or are the links to other sites normally handled more at an index level? lojbab