From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Mon May 26 09:22:43 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 92354 invoked from network); 26 May 2003 16:22:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 May 2003 16:22:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 May 2003 16:22:42 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19KKkE-0006b4-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 26 May 2003 09:22:42 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19KKk3-0006a3-00; Mon, 26 May 2003 09:22:31 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 26 May 2003 09:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41901.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.152]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19KKjn-0006X7-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 09:22:15 -0700 Message-ID: <20030526145752.11688.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41901.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 26 May 2003 07:57:52 PDT Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 07:57:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [lojban] Re: emotions To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030526104820.0337a720@pop.east.cox.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 5415 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 19895 la lojbab cusku di'e > > > >In any case, the best way to oppose these words is to provide > > > >good canonical alternatives, as Nick said. > > > > > > Nora suggested that no noncanonical word should be allowed to be > >added to > > > the jbovlaste UNLESS a canonical (perhaps longer) alternative has > >already > > > been added. > > > >That seems to put the onus on the wrong party. If I wanted > >{parji} to be adopted then I'd be tempted to enter an unappealing > >canonical alternative so that it won't really compete with my > >proposal. > > One would hope that people would abide by the spirit of the rule, and not > play such games. Even if they disagree with the spirit of the rule? Why would you expect people to act against their convictions? mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com