Re: [jboske] lo'e

[Adam Raizen <araizen@newmail.net>]

la pycyn. cusku di'e

> If
> Nick persists in his discussion, he should notice (if he hasn't already) 
> that xorxes is using essentially undefined notion in the 
> {buska}/{kairbroda} approach and that, thus, he can -- and will -- meet 
> any objection to them by a suitable addition or moidification of the 
> specifications, while insisting that that is what he meant all along 
> (with appopriate apologies for faulty exposition). So, until you can 
> get a clear refutation of a claim xorxes has made and locked down by 
> further discussion, he will not give up (and probably not even then).

I'm not sure about a lot of things in this discussion, but I do think 
that xorxes has been consistent in given a well-defined definition for 
his use of lo'e from the start, and has not changed it. And also seems 
to think so, so I'm not the only one. You on the other hand seem to jump 
around a bit, but maybe that's just due to thick-headedness on my part.

mu'o mi'e .adam.