From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Tue Sep 16 16:08:26 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19zOvd-0005Da-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:08:13 -0700 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:08:13 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Conservative, *active* BPFK commissioners needed. Message-ID: <20030916230813.GD26715@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20030916190644.GY26715@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 6188 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 05:12:22PM -0400, Craig wrote: > >The BPFK (see http://www.lojban.org/llg/baseline.html) is trying > >to represent all parts of the Lojban community. > > >Its deliberations are currently at an impasse, largely because > >there are no active comissioners who are also true Baseline > >Conservatives (i.e. people who believe that the baseline should > >be absolutely inviolate). > > >Some such people stepping up to the plate would be a Very Good > >Thing. > > I take issue with this on two counts. I agree with your POV entirely. However, no-one else (in particular Bob, Nick, and Andrew) seem to, so I wast trying to help move things along. -Robin -- Me: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "but I'm not stupid and people are not stupid who think samely with me" -- from an actual, real, non-spam mail sent to webmaster@lojban.org http://www.lojban.org/ *** .i cimo'o prali .ui