moratorium on SL debates (was: RE: interpretation of LAhE

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

Lojbab:
> At 05:11 PM 1/6/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >All of which just makes me yet more fed up with SL and the
> >current debate. We have got the point where we have to start
> >making decisions, either for SL via BF, or for AL. Currently,
> >everything is sinking into a quicksand of indeterminacy, and
> >all we have achieved is showing that virtually every
> >conceivable issue is shrouded in uncertainty due to the
> >incompleteness of the current prescription 
> 
> So maybe the debate should be put off until the BF gets to it. This is not 
> the BF, and any debates herein are at best tentative. And if we put off 
> the debates, Nick might have more time to get the BF going. (And I would 
> have more time to spend on the never-ending accounting/orders problem 

Yes, I agree. I will for a while try to confine myself to discussion
of AL, and postpone SL issues to until the BF is active.

--And.