Received: from localhost ([::1]:43670 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eSRak-0007kc-3J; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 09:58:42 -0800 Received: from mail-yb0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173]:43218) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eSRaE-0007jg-OJ for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 09:58:11 -0800 Received: by mail-yb0-f173.google.com with SMTP id w1so10468826ybe.10 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 09:58:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=+2882NFq7X8FgjTCajLlYK0izwspXQdmNE4PWwLeqao=; b=f7FNNoAt3ROF4GUj6vfFabtIOQfeYDLvGKFBRqRu1pdcQuddCULXcpsTg4yGLHq3TC VNvN1SDratpP24ZEcjMb2YCdAllwfm5mQlMw8t3J7vWua8FqgiH/OYEh2bJGunc6amer an6cEk++A3M9QeIFQdwnA90teyH6Xgp8q83i+j97nYUmYUDxPosji1ivPIg9LRd6ngnq tMBQFF9qFLWUDJsByWCBeqGOg6ET2dPp18kkfLt+Sh9g8JluYoZ2MuFwH/hZCvSTM8tI ZHYdu5FuLqbeyL1e1zG7IvnPw8QMHtUHzoy4dkF3zBWBxApa71mxV8DflWC6wIPTFRXY +JkA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=+2882NFq7X8FgjTCajLlYK0izwspXQdmNE4PWwLeqao=; b=SXC+6rPQI4ZZ9dWLZW3sMR68wbFTXRFp5nGWe7dh7BOFN81f48djUKkDPG3zfMD3AI uElbfjlKZJTyk+Eyv9EKZyaQyrbHwJdZOXxZiOq5C3Diupfe0stx7SFbvOwk6Aw8iQoJ 401NisZBAIbk1AAjCfgLgu7glW8xgWd969/GYGM0jPW9DxezhPM9A6njBMMbWc3aDtyA YYRlxH/PjnhMlFOFG5VL5FplaorebMNAhCPTZMj5O/fygUSPAZR6EMeO/dGwWkTNYbLP tPCw0x1yYGX9hSCsHLlASt2A0oa5aLsR/Drc6IN9iaDGJWPRPmUBrujlYWpPpLku1Bes e3rQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIQ73SCslKkg5ORXo0Ro8qSWwXYDUoE8Rcx4rT8dU8ALRDWCS4f TIBz+PqM2LxGjJfNBU2pqGEJumA1Blky8fbWD0A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBoslCOb8v3T1/zdbCoKWsySazXFZo+HXm1RFStSt7k5a183xADQeXHZFzSsuu3Gg+8AJWjNyeZEt2E0pXCMy/58= X-Received: by 10.37.250.18 with SMTP id b18mr9303027ybe.371.1513965484006; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 09:58:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.135.9 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 09:58:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.135.9 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 09:58:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <92D76729-D752-4738-BF24-2D5A6A0ACD4F@gmail.com> <0c93ad4b-af16-779b-229c-be364311fe23@selpahi.de> From: Curtis Franks Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 12:58:03 -0500 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.5 X-Spam_score_int: -14 X-Spam_bar: - Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Unfinished Business: BPFK X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2374803379554852256==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============2374803379554852256== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045ea166e062010560f18e03" --f403045ea166e062010560f18e03 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Okay, rather than just arguing about declarations and assertions regarding the state of Lojban, I think that we can all agree that - regardless of its current state - we want it to have more and 'sufficient' energy. What concrete steps can we take in order to make this happen? On Dec 22, 2017 12:46, "selpahi" wrote: On 21.12.2017 23:33, Riley Lynch wrote: > Lojban is bigger than any one person, be that lojbab or selpahi or anybod= y > else, and can't be simply declared dead. > I am not simply declaring it dead. The many reasons that lead to this state that Lojban is in simply leave no other verdict than the one I expressed. If this verdict seems to come out of the blue to anyone, then it most likely means that that person is quite out of touch with Lojban (this is not directed at you specifically), or =E2=80=94and this another legitimate explanation=E2=80=94 they simply don't have any expectations or hopes of Lo= jban ever doing great as a human language. One should not mistake my "declaration" as me wanting Lojban to be abandoned. Instead, this sentiment (which plenty of people share!) is born out of repeated disappointment. I love Lojban to death, and I have had to witness it fall apart for years. Watching the utter lethargy that has been inhabiting Lojbanistan is nothing short of painful, and, frankly speaking, disillusioning. But there is a point when pain turns into indifference, and I have finally reached that point. I cannot give and give and give and see no good come from it. There's a point where even the craziest supporters of a thing must take a step back and ask if it's all worth it. Lojban's community and history is unique, in good ways and in bad ways. I recently read an old mailing list and the scales fell from my eyes. Lojban's history is the history of a community self-imprisonment and self-chastisement. Throughout all these years the community has known about Lojban's problems and shortcomings, yet the same community chose time and again to let some crazy rules about a "baseline" ruin any chance of progress. Respecting those people's wish for baseline conformity, we are now not much further than we were then. Not only did it stifle progress, those same people didn't even stay around to keep using their "saved" Lojban. It was all a waste of time. I truly believe that it is the people who thought they were saving Lojban from changing too fast that effectively killed it. I am also no longer able to buy into the business of piecemeal patches to Lojban as a means of fixing it. Either leave Lojban as it is and watch it die, or fix its problems *for real*, taking no prisoners. Bob and the others forked Loglan, changed it, and then spent years trying to convince people that change is bad and a fork (usually called "schism") is the worst thing that can happen. It's hypocritical. I'd like to end this email with a quote by And Rosta, who recently said something I've been saying for years, too: "A complicating factor is that not only is the community divided into those who care about logic and those who don't (and can therefore favour CLL Lojban), those who care about logic are in turn divided into those who want to make the minimum changes to CLL Lojban to sort out the logical issues and those who think that if you're going to make any changes at all then you might as well fix some of the most egregious design flaws in order to make the language much more user-friendly. Essentially the two positions weigh the effort invested by the few people who have learnt CLL thoroughly against the much larger but more hypothetical number who might learn and use Lojban in future." ~~mi'e la selpa'i --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr=C3=BCft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --f403045ea166e062010560f18e03 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Okay, rather than just arguing about de= clarations and assertions regarding the state of Lojban, I think that we ca= n all agree that - regardless of its current state - we want it to have mor= e and 'sufficient' energy.

What concrete steps can we take in order to make this happen?

On D= ec 22, 2017 12:46, "selpahi" <selpahi@selpahi.de> wrote:
On 21.12.2017 23:33, Riley Lynch w= rote:
Lojban is bigger than any one person, be that lojbab or selpahi or anybody = else, and can't be simply declared dead.

I am not simply declaring it dead. The many reasons that lead to this state= that Lojban is in simply leave no other verdict than the one I expressed. = If this verdict seems to come out of the blue to anyone, then it most likel= y means that that person is quite out of touch with Lojban (this is not dir= ected at you specifically), or =E2=80=94and this another legitimate explana= tion=E2=80=94 they simply don't have any expectations or hopes of Lojba= n ever doing great as a human language.

One should not mistake my "declaration" as me wanting Lojban to b= e abandoned. Instead, this sentiment (which plenty of people share!) is bor= n out of repeated disappointment. I love Lojban to death, and I have had to= witness it fall apart for years.

Watching the utter lethargy that has been inhabiting Lojbanistan is nothing= short of painful, and, frankly speaking, disillusioning. But there is a po= int when pain turns into indifference, and I have finally reached that poin= t. I cannot give and give and give and see no good come from it. There'= s a point where even the craziest supporters of a thing must take a step ba= ck and ask if it's all worth it.

Lojban's community and history is unique, in good ways and in bad ways.= I recently read an old mailing list and the scales fell from my eyes. Lojb= an's history is the history of a community self-imprisonment and self-c= hastisement. Throughout all these years the community has known about Lojba= n's problems and shortcomings, yet the same community chose time and ag= ain to let some crazy rules about a "baseline" ruin any chance of= progress. Respecting those people's wish for baseline conformity, we a= re now not much further than we were then. Not only did it stifle progress,= those same people didn't even stay around to keep using their "sa= ved" Lojban. It was all a waste of time.

I truly believe that it is the people who thought they were saving Lojban f= rom changing too fast that effectively killed it.

I am also no longer able to buy into the business of piecemeal patches to L= ojban as a means of fixing it. Either leave Lojban as it is and watch it di= e, or fix its problems *for real*, taking no prisoners. Bob and the others = forked Loglan, changed it, and then spent years trying to convince people t= hat change is bad and a fork (usually called "schism") is the wor= st thing that can happen. It's hypocritical.

I'd like to end this email with a quote by And Rosta, who recently said= something I've been saying for years, too:

"A complicating factor is that not only is the community divided into = those who care about logic and those who don't (and can therefore favou= r CLL Lojban), those who care about logic are in turn divided into those wh= o want to make the minimum changes to CLL Lojban to sort out the logical is= sues and those who think that if you're going to make any changes at al= l then you might as well fix some of the most egregious design flaws in ord= er to make the language much more user-friendly. Essentially the two positi= ons weigh the effort invested by the few people who have learnt CLL thoroug= hly against the much larger but more hypothetical number who might learn an= d use Lojban in future."


~~mi'e la selpa'i

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr=C3=BCft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members

--f403045ea166e062010560f18e03-- --===============2374803379554852256== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --===============2374803379554852256==--