Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:01:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711291601.LAA27067@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Ivan A Derzhanski Sender: Lojban list From: Ivan A Derzhanski Subject: Re: Lojban discussions X-To: The Lojban List To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1059 X-From-Space-Date: Sat Nov 29 11:01:18 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Logical Language Group wrote: > Indeed, I think it is safe to say that any debate on semantics of Lojban that > is intedned to be decisive, would have to involve at minimum Cowan, myself, > Nora, Nick Nicholas, Colin Fine, Ivan Derzhanski, pc, as well as And and Jorge > (and there are others who might want to weigh in as well). Of these, 2 > are not on the list at all, and at least 3 have given indication that they > read little of the list traffic even though they are ninimnally subscribed. I'm in the second group here (and have been there for a long time now). I fondly remember the time when I was one of the most active Lojbanists, and it's with deep regret that I delete so many unread articles every day that look as though they must be of no little interest to a semanticist, but my spare time situation is such that the higher the volume and vigour of a discussion are, the less likely I am to have any hope of keeping up with it. It's just too bad that that means my having to stay away from discussing the most important questions. --Ivan