From ragnarok@pobox.com Mon Jan 14 15:05:04 2002
Return-Path: <raganok@intrex.net>
X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 14 Jan 2002 23:05:05 -0000
Received: (qmail 48851 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2002 23:05:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171)
  by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Jan 2002 23:05:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250)
  by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Jan 2002 23:05:03 -0000
Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net
  (SMTPD32-5.05) id A40525D400AA; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:04:37 -0500
To: "lojban" <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] po'u considered harmful
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:04:59 -0500
Message-ID: <LPBBLNNHBOGBGAINBIEFGELHCFAA.raganok@intrex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <sc42ee1d.033@gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
X-eGroups-From: "Craig" <raganok@intrex.net>
From: "Craig" <ragnarok@pobox.com>
Reply-To: <ragnarok@pobox.com>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382
X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 12937

>Your criticisms of du have no basis. Likewise, the prevalent idea that
>_du_ tends to be malglico has no basis.

I do not subscribe to the idea that du tends to be malglico. I do subscribe
to the idea that it can be. I simply wanted to bring to mind the fact that
whenever poi du is other than lobykai, so is po'u - and that poime always
works.