From ragnarok@pobox.com Thu Mar 14 15:02:26 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 14 Mar 2002 23:02:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 46349 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 23:02:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 23:02:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 23:02:23 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id ABFF2EF60062; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:02:23 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] lojban.org transfer, reprise. Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:02:24 -0500 Message-ID: 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: <20020314225909.GV29405@digitalkingdom.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13737 >Also, at that point we *could* move the mailing lists off of yahoo, and >hence get rid of the advertising. But I have a feeling people don't >want to do that, due to the public exposure (which I still say is >nebulous, at best). There's also some (mistaken, IMVHO) feeling that it is easier to use yahoo. If this were demonstrably true, I would support the continued use of yahoo just so as not to turn off non-geeks any more than we already do.