Message-Id: <199602291629.LAA13198@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Thu, 29 Feb 1996 07:49:37 -0800
Reply-To: "Peter L. Schuerman" <plschuerman@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Peter L. Schuerman" <plschuerman@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Cognitive distortions and lojban
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  <v02110109ad5a87484f8c@[128.248.251.102]>
Content-Length: 1591

On Wed, 28 Feb 1996, Steven M. Belknap wrote:

> Unfortunately, Peter doesn't seem to be posting to the list lately, perhaps
> because of our disagreement regarding fuzziness. This is too bad; I rather
> enjoyed our spirited discussion. I hope he is still following the
> development of lojban.

Although I occasionally tune in to see what sorts of ideas people are
discussing, I don't really follow the list closely anymore...  I've been
busy completing my doctorate in genetics, and in any event I've lost
interest in learning Lojban itself, but am interested in what I can learn
*from* Lojban.  My initially favorable impression of Lojban has changed,
and I now regard Lojban as "a computer programming language that you can't
even write a program in"  :) Now that I'm finished with my degree I hope
to have a little more time for my linguistic interests.

And no, Steven, it wasn't the discussion about fuzziness that caused me to
lose interest in Lojban... after all, it didn't have anything to do with
Lojban whatsoever.  Although our discussion might have been "spirited" I
wouldn't characterize it as productive because it didn't evolve much...  I
was never able to show you the fallacy of using numbers to stand for
adjectives, and the fallacy of subsequently doing mathematical operations
on said numbers.  I feel that the communication of this idea to you was a
0 on a success-scale of 0-10.

Peter Schuerman                                    plschuerman@ucdavis.edu
                        Co-editor, SPECTRA Online
          for back issues: http://www.well.com/user/phandaal/