From pycyn@aol.com Fri Aug 10 15:53:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 10 Aug 2001 22:53:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 15057 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2001 22:53:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Aug 2001 22:53:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r01.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.97) by mta2 with SMTP; 10 Aug 2001 22:53:14 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.3.) id r.66.12c7c509 (2616) for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 18:53:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <66.12c7c509.28a5bfd2@aol.com> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 18:53:06 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Re: Well I guess you do learn something new every day... To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_66.12c7c509.28a5bfd2_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9408 --part1_66.12c7c509.28a5bfd2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/10/2001 5:35:54 PM Central Daylight Time, jay.kominek@colorado.edu writes: > I find it depressingly amusing (.u'i.uinai) that the same points are being > discussed by the same people, five and a half years later. > > I suppose it would be too much to hope that people interested in debating > the merits of using Lojban as a developmental toy could go back through > the archives and live vicariously though their old emails? > Then you can imagine how I feel after discussing it for 25 years! What I would hope is that the people who want to use Lojban would take the time to look at this stuff and learn how to do it, rather than coming whining to the list with the same old problem (or trumpeting to the list with the same old mistakes). We don't do this for fun, y'know, we do it because others keep not getting it. --part1_66.12c7c509.28a5bfd2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/10/2001 5:35:54 PM Central Daylight Time,
jay.kominek@colorado.edu writes:


I find it depressingly amusing (.u'i.uinai) that the same points are being
discussed by the same people, five and a half years later.

I suppose it would be too much to hope that people interested in debating
the merits of using Lojban as a developmental toy could go back through
the archives and live vicariously though their old emails?

Then you can imagine how I feel after discussing it for 25 years!  What I
would hope is that the people who want to use Lojban would take the time to
look at this stuff and learn how to do it, rather than coming whining to the
list with the same old problem  (or trumpeting to the list with the same old
mistakes). We don't do this for fun, y'know, we do it because others keep not
getting it. --part1_66.12c7c509.28a5bfd2_boundary--