From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Dec 22 16:10:12 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 24869 invoked from network); 23 Dec 2004 00:10:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m25.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Dec 2004 00:10:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Dec 2004 00:10:12 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1ChGYV-000343-AV for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:10:11 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1ChGYM-00033e-Nv; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:10:02 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:09:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1ChGY9-00033S-Dh for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:09:49 -0800 Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:09:49 -0800 Message-ID: <20041223000949.GC20429@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20041222190005.GE6612@skunk.reutershealth.com> <20041222235715.34019.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041222235715.34019.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-archive-position: 9109 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 X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Founders: ja'o and ni'ikri X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23508 On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 03:57:15PM -0800, jordi mas wrote: > > I think it dates back to the days before the krici/jinvi > > distinction was clearly understood. In any event, the > > definition of "krici" as believing without evidence/proof is > > probably too strong: it should be more like believing with or > > without evidence/proof. > > I really can't see why it is probably too strong. Believing > without proof is something we human beings do all the time. Yes, but we also believe things *regardless* of proof, or things where we believe (heh) that proof exists but have not actually examined it ourselves. There are *lots* of those, and krici should cover them. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/