RE: [jboske] There are no fundamentalists..

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

> ....just fundamentalism. There are no revisionsists, just revisionism 

Quite so. Talk about "fundamentalists" can mean "anyone who is
a proponent of fundamentalism", not "Lojbab and Jordan".

> Factions are cool; but factions are fluid. I'm allowed to be fundie in 
> most things, and revisionist in a couple. I'm also allowed to lose at 
> the hands at other, more consistent fundies, and curse them all the way 
> down. Much though I'm fuming at Jordan right now, we *need* Jordan, 
> because we need fundies. And I fully admit that on this one issue, I am 
> being revisionist, not fundie. I'm trying to be revisionist lite, but 
> yes, I am being revisionist 
>
> Still willing to compromise, though. For example: Give me a collective 
> lu'oi, and you can keep your lojbanmass loi. That kind of thing 

I wonder about that: how happy would people be if they never used
"loi broda" and always used "lu'oi ro broda" instead. Would they not
come to feel frustration? Or is that a Lojban Mark II issue? That
is, the BF takes a basically fundamentalist line as far as possible,
adding but not changing what already exists, and then after testing
it through usage the community decides whether to undertake more
drastic revisions?

> Don't expect of me consistency, And. It is to the good of Lojban that 
> there be fundamentalism. Not that I or anyone else hold a consistently 
> fundie viewpoint on everything. These are guidelines, and this is 
> politics, and we have to wheeler-deal 

I know this, but you can't lambast me for breaching fundamentalist
principles if you are prepared to breach them yourself, and I 
happen to strike a different balance between fundamentalism and
revisionism that the one you strike.

> They don't call me weasel for nothing. :-)
> 
> I wanted to flame Bob's response to you, mainly because I flame 
> everything Bob says by reflex :-) , and I don't like him saying "no 
> factionalism", that's just silly. But thinking of it, I can't really 
> flame him. Factions are fine, because there are conflicting aims for 
> the language, which need to be acknowledged, and I reject any attempt 
> to squelch that. But fluid membership in factions, and the ability to 
> compromise, they're better. There is no fundamentalism per se either. 
> Just votes to keep or change, on particular issues. (Another of Bob's 
> insights.)

I agree with this. I tried to say something similar in my reply to
Lojbab.

> I can't flame him, but I do believe my sometime ally and sometime 
> adversary in Preston to be capable of compromise, even if not fluidity. 
> So lay off him. :-)

I am indeed capable of compromise. And I can also live with being
outvoted: I have had getting on for a dozen years of practice in
being outvoted in Lojban matters! I'm not expecting this to change!

--And.