Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 12:03:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712051703.MAA22829@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: Lojbab on lojban list (Was: Re: reply to And #3) X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2189 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec 5 12:03:48 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU > >We've had this discussion time and time again. Lots of people > >have favoured splitting the list into a biginners and a technical > >list, and you have vetoed it. > > Not vetoed it - it simply is outside of my power. We have one list and have > to choose what it is to be. Someone wants to set up another list and I cannot > nor will not try to stop them. But if you wanted another list set up you could ask for volunteers. > MY other fear in not having more particupation in major usage decisions > is that there will come to be a split inthe language because you guys think > you have figured out something and start using the langauge on that basis > and the rest of us who have not read these enormous discussions (and some > of us who have %^) will have no idea what you mean. I am worried about the > promulgation of important ideas around the community. This would be > adequately dealt with by people writing summaries of the discussions. I agree. > Ideally such summaries would not only be suitable for relative beginners, > but they could also be compiled into JL issues (which have not come out > in part because >I< have no time to write such summaries any more, and > they have formed the bulk of past issues). Good. > >> I'd like more of this. The phone game was nice, but maybe we need a more > >> public version, where someone posts something in Lojban and then after a set > >> period of time everyone posts their own interpretations (without discussion) > >> followed by discussion of the various choices . Not unlike what Mark did. > > > >That would be good, especially if the pace was really slow so I > >could find time to join in. > > And here is where you support my point. IF the pace was slow, you would have > time tojoin in. But you and Jorge spend so much time on the technical > diwscussions that you do not ave such time, and some of the rest of us > chew up our time reading the discussions whether or not we respond. If I didn't spend all this time on these discussions I wouldn't be spending all the saved time on writing in Lojban though. I'd be spending it on various other things I've been neglecting in the last week or two. --And