Re: [lojban] Re: {lo} down/was: RE:xorlo ipodcast

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

--- Robin Lee Powell
<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 04:09:37PM -0700, John
> E Clifford wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > --- Jorge Llamb?as <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 9/30/05, Robin Lee Powell
> > > <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > > > If you people really must do this crap in
> public, could you at
> > > > least change the subject line?
> > 
> > As the man in charge in some sense of BPFK,
> it is probably not
> > useful for you to be calling a discussion of
> one of the few items
> > which have actually been worked out "crap."
> 
> Two people using thousands of words arguing
> between themselves on a
> public list when *no-one else* has participated
> is "crap".  The
> subject is irrelevant.

Well, anyone is welcome to participate and I
would have thought that anyone who was concerned
about the language would want to, since the
subject, {lo}, is one of the most pervasive in
the language.  If the level of indifference to
that is so great, I can't help wonder what kind
of future the project has.  But, if the person in
chanrge thinks that {lo} is irrelevant, I suppose
the future is not very promising altogether
anyhow.
  
> Note, however, that in my lexicon "crap" is
> barely even an insult.
> More of a generic identifier with a mild
> implication of distaste.

Sorry, I took it as stronger.