From pycyn@aol.com Thu Sep 12 18:40:59 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 13 Sep 2002 01:40:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 83031 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2002 01:40:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Sep 2002 01:40:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d09.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.41) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2002 01:40:58 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.131.13975ea9 (3956) for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 21:40:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <131.13975ea9.2ab29c25@aol.com> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 21:40:53 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: word for "www" (was: Archive location.) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_131.13975ea9.2ab29c25_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 15633 --part1_131.13975ea9.2ab29c25_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/11/2002 5:59:43 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes: << > > > It is not the case that the whole point of lujvo is that someone > > > > should be able to dissect them and figure out what you mean. The > whole > > > > point of lujvo is that they are words formed from parts that have > > > > independent meaning within Lojban, but with a meaning that is not > > > > equivalent to the sum of their parts. Their dissectablity is not > their > > > > point. > > > > > > OK. What is their point? > > >> > > Now who is being deliberately obtuse? > > Obtuse, maybe. Deliberately, no. << Urr Umm, as the saying goes. Note that the answer to the question starts in the second line of the pargraph you are responding to and that it is repeated in And's response, at which later point, you concede it as though it were new. In short just about exactly others' flaws that led you to call them deliberately obtuse. You can appreciate my confusion, no doubt. --part1_131.13975ea9.2ab29c25_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/11/2002 5:59:43 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes:

<<

> > It is not the case that the whole point of lujvo is that someone
> > > should be able to dissect them and figure out what you mean. The whole
> > > point of lujvo is that they are words formed from parts that have
> > > independent meaning within Lojban, but with a meaning that is not
> > > equivalent to the sum of their parts. Their dissectablity is not their
> > > point.
> >
> > OK. What is their point?
> >>
> Now who is being deliberately obtuse?

Obtuse, maybe. Deliberately, no.

<<
Urr Umm, as the saying goes. Note that the answer to the question starts in the second line of the pargraph you are responding to and that it is repeated in And's response, at which later point, you concede it as though it were new. In short just about exactly others' flaws that led you to call them deliberately obtuse.
You can appreciate my confusion, no doubt. --part1_131.13975ea9.2ab29c25_boundary--