Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tJKCz-0000ZUC; Sat, 25 Nov 95 14:59 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id C417B5C8 ; Sat, 25 Nov 1995 13:59:56 +0100 Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 07:57:46 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: serving the needs of Lojban learners X-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1307 Lines: 25 That you were singled out as a non-lurker does NOT mean I don't want your opinion. I juist wanted to make sure theat on this issue, the lurkers were not shut out by the others. We tried something like you suggested once, by setting up the Sandpit list (Jimbobs list) for the oneswho had shown interest in the heavy discussions (it was not volumen, but type of discussion). IT worked when Cowan and I were the only ones who intitated topics, because we were pretty consistent in deciding which topics we would post to which list. But the Jimbobs list was maintained informally - it wasn;t a listserv, but an alias that Cowan used, and everyone else copied from his headers. The other problem, of course is that Cowan and I don't have time to maintain OR particiapte in such a list, but one of us would feel an obligation to do the latter anyway. It would be nice if youguys could keep you high level discussions from coming around to questions that Cowan or I have to answer, but that seems to be the nature of the community right now. I do have records of everone who has signed on Lojban List in the past, but not pulled out in any usefuil way except for those before 8/94, which is where my current mail backlog starts (actually I just finished 8/94 and started on 9/94 come to think of it). lojbab