From pycyn@aol.com Wed Sep 11 14:26:06 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 11 Sep 2002 21:26:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 15183 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2002 21:26:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Sep 2002 21:26:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 2002 21:26:03 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.1ad.84403b2 (4584) for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:25:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1ad.84403b2.2ab10ee7@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:25:59 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_1ad.84403b2.2ab10ee7_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: 15597 --part1_1ad.84403b2.2ab10ee7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/11/2002 1:11:59 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes: << > > On a parallel note, it's interesting that the people who were around > > when the notion of lujvo was being developed have a quite different > > understanding of the intent behind lujvo than those who came much > > later in the game. Poor communication? > > Has anyone besides PC who was around then spoken up on this point? >> Is there anyone besides pc (lowercase, please) who was around then and still active? Ah yes, Chassell -- who wisely stays out of this kind of dispute (and just about all others not involving software). The problem is partly poor communication, perhaps, but more (I think) a break in institutional continuity and a small but significant shift in the demographics of the community. There are, it seems, no longer any significant number of non-computer people around (I apologize to anyone that I have missed) and that has led to a more algorithmic approach to issues than the more humane sort that once was at least present, if not dominant. Most old lujvo were also literalist, but these were discarded when a telling metaphor came along -- as it fairly often did when the concept was useful enough. --part1_1ad.84403b2.2ab10ee7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/11/2002 1:11:59 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes:

<<

> On a parallel note, it's interesting that the people who were around
> when the notion of lujvo was being developed have a quite different
> understanding of the intent behind lujvo than those who came much
> later in the game. Poor communication?

Has anyone besides PC who was around then spoken up on this point?

>>
Is there anyone besides pc (lowercase, please) who was around then and still active?
Ah yes, Chassell -- who wisely stays out of this kind of dispute (and just about all others not involving software).
The problem is partly poor communication, perhaps, but more (I think) a break in institutional continuity and a small but significant shift in the demographics of the community. There are, it seems, no longer any significant number of non-computer people around (I apologize to anyone that I have missed) and that has led to a more algorithmic approach to issues than the more humane sort that once was at least present, if not dominant. Most old lujvo were also literalist, but these were discarded when a telling metaphor came along -- as it fairly often did when the concept was useful enough. --part1_1ad.84403b2.2ab10ee7_boundary--