Xod: > On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > Yes, I don't mind disagreeing with CLL > > I haven't yet seen an explanation of what's so broken with the CLL > definition or usage of lo'e It's not broken. It's incomplete/vague/underspecified. (I do think le'e is broken, though, but I have discussed this in another message.) --And.