From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Apr 29 09:01:44 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 29 Apr 2009 09:01:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LzCEB-0000EF-FM for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 09:01:44 -0700 Received: from imr-d01.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.39]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LzCE5-0000Ck-Cl for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 09:01:43 -0700 Received: from imo-da02.mx.aol.com (imo-da02.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.200]) by imr-d01.mx.aol.com (v107.10) with ESMTP id RELAYIN2-349f879591f5; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:59:22 -0400 Received: from MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com by imo-da02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v40_r1.5.) id d.bcc.4d931d29 (14502) for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:59:04 -0400 (EDT) From: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:59:04 EDT Subject: [lojban] Re: Logical Naming Conventions To: lojban-list@lojban.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_bcc.4d931d29.3729d348_boundary" X-Mailer: 6.0 for Windows XP sub 11501 X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-IP: 205.188.169.200 X-archive-position: 15521 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_bcc.4d931d29.3729d348_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/29/2009 11:54:43 Eastern Daylight Time, danny.piccirillo@gmail.com writes: > Do you guys prefer naemes that you can identify with, or just names with > no (or very little) meaning that sound nice? > I don't go by the sound much at all. A name like "Wahoolawallahoo" would just be random nonsense, regardless of how 'nice' it sounds. I wouldn't want a name that is nonsense. Even a number is better than that. ST3VO --part1_bcc.4d931d29.3729d348_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a messag= e dated 4/29/2009 11:54:43 Eastern Daylight Time, danny.piccirillo@gmail.c= om writes:


Do you guys prefer naem= es that you can identify with, or just names with no (or very little) mean= ing that sound nice?


I don't go by the sound much at all.  A name like "Wahoolawallaho= o" would just be random nonsense, regardless of how 'nice' it sounds. &nbs= p;I wouldn't want a name that is nonsense.  Even a number is better= than that.  

ST3VO --part1_bcc.4d931d29.3729d348_boundary-- To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.