Received: from [::1] (port=52090 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eU6c1-00085S-6N; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 23:58:53 -0800 Received: from mail-ua0-f182.google.com ([209.85.217.182]:45397) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eU6bT-00084E-Hq for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 23:58:21 -0800 Received: by mail-ua0-f182.google.com with SMTP id e39so2568134uae.12 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 23:58:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=f7T2eJeKPTCD7yH854Ac8Mcy38dsDaEXFXy90xPJSd4=; b=RtdHVW+x9l9Gu6QYUoHAV3qwmPUrKRzA4cclNxqaH/RIlMlyT6EAksqgA0OTfq2XTk AoD9ttlPsKBzBw6dKy9zm7oJwnyxRosmoEaFJK2zTqxP9YCa7SKZfwv5AOoqigsd9UFs H7F5S3yHCB7QQDarCIQEE6fywuT07qo+rRgUJlXGdvDfVyHhuinwXYhX/X8SwzCYThs4 UyXBJf/VW+wplmjhm4r6K0UhH03/7O8NLp3WzrIMxtUOzfSXGiHLonUUz4tbA+8hw6v3 ArhYi/h68rD7R4mh8xxHXEgarnMIk206kkU17QH+KWkKKm1r7PyAQZIlh/Ll/gThHWfO mwZg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=f7T2eJeKPTCD7yH854Ac8Mcy38dsDaEXFXy90xPJSd4=; b=s7MDFyQs2qH0mcvC05pC/LAO/m2iozFYRU0j3J1cvo0ipw1u+iFJGcR0QR1DmIRnsz d7FcvRxmTnm8IzjhxnNmz4i35liI81vWFq/3O8VEgOvN24zOhAs4zFJQAD0bbn0gtuDU ponH6cnV8Nl/xCVP/Hj4XzR9cSQtdgHYpuna0uND8X4gnJxa8Tvsn9Tz24L3yEhCVkIj fDy28AjZaqqijj4Pc5FdJdy9kyjqucR0taJpbNoPvuTpBBaSNDsOZ5nKhup2BC68esot Vsy9+QhAjXli1ux+tHI3/WHQLPQhdzohbSrvyEQH3JNPjLZ42conLwr5Qnyrm3FP2juD KeLQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mISwVJo6SqACNTJBXcRUjkuUbXyqfaTO4x2dfEq2MNzqkR4lCCt ELnxmleSgrEFisxM/h40tpd94bnmsXyw4ubiLTw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosPZP89SlmVQ7NbggJ0fFdAUnWQeKo3hmcAAsF5TutdFwu5j87aB6D3drqyeTnraj8OHmmg6AoRR8NeFtGnZUg= X-Received: by 10.159.35.234 with SMTP id 97mr30078530uao.119.1514361491970; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 23:58:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 23:58:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 23:58:11 -0800 (PST) From: Creative Care Services Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 02:58:11 -0500 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: [Llg-members] Something to think about before "New Business" 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="===============7376388073692004478==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org Sender: "Llg-members" --===============7376388073692004478== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c03caf0ca5e0a05614dc200" --94eb2c03caf0ca5e0a05614dc200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Everyone, do we need to find a long term method of keeping accusations from our meetings? Think on this polled as I will be bringing the issue up again as new business. On Dec 27, 2017 02:08, "guskant" wrote: This message is only a reply to Lojbab. I think further discussion about the death of the LLG should be restrained in this thread. If you continue discussing that, please post as a new thread. 2017-12-26 20:07 GMT+00:00 Bob LeChevalier : > > All of the other official documents are in the public domain, as far as I > know. Anyone can copy them or change them. But only a version of the > document(s) explicitly adopted by BPFK (or LLG) will be considered official > by most people. > >> I wish all the official contents were attributed >> to CC BY-SA 4.0, > > > No idea what this means. > Copying and changing the official documents without notice brings chaos because anyone can deceive people in believing that one's version is the real official documents. In order to prevent the chaos, I recommend CC BY-SA 4.0 described here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ It is neither "no rights reserved (public domain)" nor "all rights reserved", but some rights reserved for keeping the source documents easy to be used by others. It is practical for future Lojbanists because they will easily refer to the source documents without worrying about the difference of versions between copies. > >> I don't want to continue discussion of websites or servers in this >> thread. I want to go back to my first post addressed to Karis in this >> thread [3]. My points are the following three: >> >> 1. Any official supports are not required for advertisements, events >> or meetings. >> 2. I agree to dissolving the LLG, wishing that the balance would be >> contributed for education of poor children. >> 3. Future Lojbanists need concrete fossil (reliable archives) of the >> CLL and the BPFK documents. >> >> I'm waiting for a reply from Karis. > > > Those points are largely independent of each other. > > On point 1, it is correct that such are not "required". I think Karen was > merely noting that LLG has some funds, and that this would be a valid and > possible use of those funds. If LLG were to decide to undertake some > promotion of the language, there would likely be costs that someone would > have to bear. Whether sponsoring such is the best use of LLG funds is > something to be debated. > I know, and I have already replied to Karis about my misunderstanding here: http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/2017-December/001670.html > On point 2, LLG is unlikely to be dissolved, and most likely if it were, any > assets that we have would likely be applied to some other qualified > organization that works with language in some way at least tangential to the > LLG purposes. People who gave money to LLG presumably did so in support of > either Lojban or language research. However virtuous the education of > children is, it would be a misappropriation of funds to use them for that > purpose. > The suggestion of using the balance for the education of poor children is valid only after dissolving the LLG. According to Karis, whether we should dissolve the LLG will be discussed in another new thread, and we should wait for the time. > I agree with point 3. > > The Secretary (mukti) is responsible for any official management of archival > materials (though in my titled role as "Archivist" (which has no formalized > responsibility), I have unofficially kept my own archive). But I don't pay > attention to anything not on the LLG web pages. > > BPFK is of course responsible for promulgating any documents which they > approve, though they can do so by reporting them to this meeting or directly > to the Secretary (mukti). > > I'm not sure what if any changes need to be made to this status quo, other > than to have BPFK decide to do its job and then actually follow through. > My last motion was exactly to solve problems with the point 3: http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/2017-February/001357.html Gleki implicitly agreed and Curtis did not oppose to the motion, but the meeting was closed without discussing it. No opposition. It was not discussed. Everyone other than Gleki and Curtis just ignored the motion. That is the death of the LLG. 2017-12-26 20:21 GMT+00:00 Bob LeChevalier : > On 12/25/2017 11:47 PM, guskant wrote: >> >> Do you talk about the pieces of evidence for the LLG is dead? If so, I >> would like to confirm that those facts cannot be negated no matter >> whether I am happy with the results. > > > There are no such facts. > >> It is a fact that we have not yet >> published any official reply to the open letter to the LLG that was >> posted two years ago. > > > No one apparently wanted to make any official reply, so none was made. It > isn't required that LLG respond to such things. > > If you have an issue you want to ne considered, make a motion. > All the motions I posted were just ignored, not discussed. That is the death of the LLG. >> ? It is also a fact that we achieved nothing for >> resolving the problems that I posted for these two years. > > > It isn't necessarily the case that others agree that those problems exist or > are of particular concern. > Someone agreed to some parts of the motions, no one disagreed the motions I posted. The problems are simply ignored, not discussed. That is the death of the LLG. > I recall that you had some kind of enmity toward gleki and/or his actions, > and selpa'i has recently expressed some unhappiness with him in this > discussion. > > But unless LLG or the Secretary (or the BPFK if applicable) adopts some > rules or procedures, no one can or will stop gleki from doing what he sees > fit. But I'm not sure anyone (but you) cares that much; there certainly > should be room in the Lojbanic world for both of you. gleki is doing > something, (as are you) and that alone is evidence that Lojban is not > "dead". If neither of you need or want any official LLG support to do what > you wish, then of course it is not necessary that we do so (though I for one > would welcome your regularly reporting on what you are doing. I admire much > of it insofar as I understand.) > > lojbab > The official body has right to sue Gleki for his official pretending activities. The open letter http://guskant.github.io/lojbo/open_letter/open_letter.html is therefore worth discussing the contents and making decision what to do with the open letter. However, the discussion at that time achieved nothing. Even whether the official body should reply or not was not discussed. That is the death of the LLG. I don't know the US law, but Gleki's activities described in the open letter can be penalized in some countries. Here is a simple explanation by a lawyers' group in the UK about the crime for impersonation on social media: http://himsworthslegal.com/when-is-it-unlawful-to-impersonate-someone-else I consider Gleki's activities can be considered as "defamation". Here is one of the pieces of evidence: http://guskant.github.io/lojbo/open_letter/tsv.html Some of his official-pretending comments on Twitter actually bothered people who casually commented on Lojban. Gleki's official-pretending responses might have made them feel hostility toward Lojban. Not only I but also some people on the Lojban IRC expressed the similar fear at that time. Those activities of Gleki can be considered as defamation of the LLG. Not only the UK, but also Japan can penalize Gleki's activities. The penalty of "3 years or less imprisonment with work, or the fine up to five hundred thousand JPY (around 4415 USD)" for credit damage or business nuisance is described in Article 233 of the Criminal Code of Japan. The Code was sometimes applied for impersonating someone on social media. Gleki's activities mentioned in the open letter may be considered as a kind of business nuisance of the LLG. The problems described in the open letter are not solved. Gleki continues pretending to be the official body. Here is the recent piece of evidence dated November 19, 2017: (an extract from the record of IRC Lojban Group) --- Day changed Sun Nov 19 2017 16:55 < ^^^^> > " ": @lojban are you a programmer?" lojban is a language, not a programmer" 16:55 < ^^^^> : In case you hadn't understood, I was tagging Arcady. 16:55 < PoroCYon> shows up as "lojban" for me 16:55 < ^^^^> > " shows up as "lojban" for me" 16:55 < ^^^^> : Its Arcady's username on Telegram. 16:56 < PoroCYon> ah 17:00 < ^^^^> : yeah 17:01 < ^^^^> : a'a 17:01 < thrig> "xa! xa! xa!" laughed the demon 17:05 < kahai> : It seems inappropriate to call yourself "lojban" as if you were some kind of representative. mi'e la guskant _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --94eb2c03caf0ca5e0a05614dc200 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Everyone, do we need to find a long term method of keepin= g accusations from our meetings? Think on this polled as I will be bringing= the issue up again as new business.

On Dec 27, 2017 02:08, "guskant" <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrote:<= br type=3D"attribution">
This message is only a rep= ly to Lojbab. I think further discussion
about the death of the LLG should be restrained in this thread. If you
continue discussing that, please post as a new thread.


2017-12-26 20:07 GMT+00:00 Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>:
>
> All of the other official documents are in the public domain, as far a= s I
> know.=C2=A0 Anyone can copy them or change them.=C2=A0 But only a vers= ion of the
> document(s) explicitly adopted by BPFK (or LLG) will be considered off= icial
> by most people.
>
>> I wish all the official contents were attributed
>> to CC BY-SA 4.0,
>
>
> No idea what this means.
>

Copying and changing the official documents without notice brings
chaos because anyone can deceive people in believing that one's
version is the real official documents. In order to prevent the chaos,
I recommend CC BY-SA 4.0 described here:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<= /a>
It is neither "no rights reserved (public domain)" nor "all = rights
reserved", but some rights reserved for keeping the source documents easy to be used by others. It is practical for future Lojbanists
because they will easily refer to the source documents without
worrying about the difference of versions between copies.


>
>> I don't want to continue discussion of websites or servers in = this
>> thread. I want to go back to my first post addressed to Karis in t= his
>> thread [3]. My points are the following three:
>>
>> 1. Any official supports are not required for advertisements, even= ts
>> or meetings.
>> 2. I agree to dissolving the LLG, wishing that the balance would b= e
>> contributed for education of poor children.
>> 3. Future Lojbanists need concrete fossil (reliable archives) of t= he
>> CLL and the BPFK documents.
>>
>> I'm waiting for a reply from Karis.
>
>
> Those points are largely independent of each other.
>
> On point 1, it is correct that such are not "required".=C2= =A0 I think Karen was
> merely noting that LLG has some funds, and that this would be a valid = and
> possible use of those funds.=C2=A0 If LLG were to decide to undertake = some
> promotion of the language, there would likely be costs that someone wo= uld
> have to bear.=C2=A0 Whether sponsoring such is the best use of LLG fun= ds is
> something to be debated.
>

I know, and I have already replied to Karis about my misunderstanding= here:
http://mail.lojban.org/<= wbr>mailman/private/llg-members/2017-December/001670.html


> On point 2, LLG is unlikely to be dissolved, and most likely if it wer= e, any
> assets that we have would likely be applied to some other qualified > organization that works with language in some way at least tangential = to the
> LLG purposes.=C2=A0 People who gave money to LLG presumably did so in = support of
> either Lojban or language research. However virtuous the education of<= br> > children is, it would be a misappropriation of funds to use them for t= hat
> purpose.
>

The suggestion of using the balance for the education of poor childre= n
is valid only after dissolving the LLG. According to Karis, whether we
should dissolve the LLG will be discussed in another new thread, and
we should wait for the time.


> I agree with point 3.
>
> The Secretary (mukti) is responsible for any official management of ar= chival
> materials (though in my titled role as "Archivist" (which ha= s no formalized
> responsibility), I have unofficially kept my own archive).=C2=A0 But I= don't pay
> attention to anything not on the LLG web pages.
>
> BPFK is of course responsible for promulgating any documents which the= y
> approve, though they can do so by reporting them to this meeting or di= rectly
> to the Secretary (mukti).
>
> I'm not sure what if any changes need to be made to this status qu= o, other
> than to have BPFK decide to do its job and then actually follow throug= h.
>

My last motion was exactly to solve problems with the point 3:
http://mail.lojban.org/<= wbr>mailman/private/llg-members/2017-February/001357.html

Gleki implicitly agreed and Curtis did not oppose to the motion, but
the meeting was closed without discussing it. No opposition. It was
not discussed. Everyone other than Gleki and Curtis just ignored the
motion. That is the death of the LLG.



2017-12-26 20:21 GMT+00:00 Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>:
> On 12/25/2017 11:47 PM, guskant wrote:
>>
>> Do you talk about the pieces of evidence for the LLG is dead? If s= o, I
>> would like to confirm that those facts cannot be negated no matter=
>> whether I am happy with the results.
>
>
> There are no such facts.
>
>> It is a fact that we have not yet
>> published any official reply to the ope= n letter to the LLG that was
>> posted two years ago.
>
>
> No one apparently wanted to make any official reply, so none was made.= It
> isn't required that LLG respond to such things.
>
> If you have an issue you want to ne considered, make a motion.
>

All the motions I posted were just ignored, not discussed.=C2=A0 That= is
the death of the LLG.


>> ? It is also a fact that we achieved nothing for
>> resolving the problems that I posted for these two years.
>
>
> It isn't necessarily the case that others agree that those problem= s exist or
> are of particular concern.
>

Someone agreed to some parts of the motions, no one disagreed the
motions I posted. The problems are simply ignored, not discussed. That
is the death of the LLG.


> I recall that you had some kind of enmity toward gleki and/or his acti= ons,
> and selpa'i has recently expressed some unhappiness with him in th= is
> discussion.
>
> But unless LLG or the Secretary (or the BPFK if applicable) adopts som= e
> rules or procedures, no one can or will stop gleki from doing what he = sees
> fit.=C2=A0 But I'm not sure anyone (but you) cares that much; ther= e certainly
> should be room in the Lojbanic world for both of you.=C2=A0 gleki is d= oing
> something, (as are you) and that alone is evidence that Lojban is not<= br> > "dead".=C2=A0 If neither of you need or want any official LL= G support to do what
> you wish, then of course it is not necessary that we do so (though I f= or one
> would welcome your regularly reporting on what you are doing.=C2=A0 I = admire much
> of it insofar as I understand.)
>
> lojbab
>

The official body has right to sue Gleki for his official pretending<= br> activities. The open letter
http://guskant.github.io/lojbo/open_= letter/open_letter.html
is therefore worth discussing the contents and making decision what to
do with the open letter. However, the discussion at that time achieved
nothing. Even whether the official body should reply or not was not
discussed. That is the death of the LLG.

I don't know the US law, but Gleki's activities described in the op= en
letter can be penalized in some countries.

Here is a simple explanation by a lawyers' group in the UK about the crime for impersonation on social media:
http://himsworthslegal.com= /when-is-it-unlawful-to-impersonate-someone-else
I consider Gleki's activities can be considered as "defamation&quo= t;. Here
is one of the pieces of evidence:
http://guskant.github.io/lojbo/open_letter/t= sv.html
Some of his official-pretending comments on Twitter actually bothered
people who casually commented on Lojban. Gleki's official-pretending responses might have made them feel hostility toward Lojban. Not only
I but also some people on the Lojban IRC expressed the similar fear at
that time. Those activities of Gleki can be considered as defamation
of the LLG.

Not only the UK, but also Japan can penalize Gleki's activities. The penalty of "3 years or less imprisonment with work, or the fine up to<= br> five hundred thousand JPY (around 4415 USD)" for credit damage or
business nuisance is described in Article 233 of the Criminal Code of
Japan. The Code was sometimes applied for impersonating someone on
social media. Gleki's activities mentioned in the open letter may be considered as a kind of business nuisance of the LLG.

The problems described in the open letter are not solved. Gleki
continues pretending to be the official body. Here is the recent piece
of evidence dated November 19, 2017:

(an extract from the record of IRC Lojban Group)
--- Day changed Sun Nov 19 2017
16:55 < ^^^^> > "<PoroCYon> "<nelsonbrochado>= ;: @lojban are you a
programmer?" lojban is a language, not a programmer"
16:55 < ^^^^> <nelsonbrochado>: In case you hadn't understo= od, I was
tagging Arcady.
16:55 < PoroCYon> shows up as "lojban" for me
16:55 < ^^^^> > "<PoroCYon> shows up as "lojban&qu= ot; for me"
16:55 < ^^^^> <nelsonbrochado>: Its Arcady's username on Te= legram.
16:56 < PoroCYon> ah
17:00 < ^^^^> <notzmv>: yeah
17:01 < ^^^^> <notzmv>: a'a
17:01 < thrig> "xa! xa! xa!" laughed the demon
17:05 < kahai> <solpahi>: It seems inappropriate to call yourse= lf
"lojban" as if you were some kind of representative.



mi'e la guskant

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


--94eb2c03caf0ca5e0a05614dc200-- --===============7376388073692004478== 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 --===============7376388073692004478==--