Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 16:22:45 -0400
Message-ID: <20040530202245.GD21769@mit.edu>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org
References: <20040530184511.GA21387@mit.edu> <20040530192759.GR818@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040530192759.GR818@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
From: Rob Speer <lojban-out@lojban.org>
Reply-To: rspeer@MIT.EDU
Subject: [lojban] Re: Forget XS, let's go back to XS.
Content-Length: 1201
Lines: 32

On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 12:27:59PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 02:45:11PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
> > And XS right now is trying to solve all of them in one fell swoop. As
> > I understand it, it's saying:
> > 
> >   "{lo} is defined as the intensional article, and it already means
> >   everything you want it to mean."
> 
> First of all, this shouldn't be here, it should be on the BPFK/Wiki
> lists.

Why shouldn't it be here? Sure, I'm putting it on the Wiki now after seeing a
bit of support for it, but why shouldn't I propose it on the main list first
before codifying it? Everyone on the BPFK/Wiki lists is on the main list. Also,
posting on the main list goes along with my general intent, which is that the
gadri discussion should be accessible to normal people, including those not
following the BPFK's every move.

> Secondly, that doesn't, in any way, resemble what xorxes' proposal is.

You mean, aside from xorxes re-stating his proposal as exactly the words "{lo}
is defined as the intensional article", and the numerous things he has said in
its defense that amount to "{lo} already means everything you want it to mean"?

-- 
Rob Speer