[lojban] Re: la ogYsty

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

Jay:
> I thought you were going to keep jboske silliness on the jboske list,
> too.  "I'm going to ignore a CLEARLY STATED RULE and then complain
> about it to the mailing list" is pretty clearly a little jboske "lets
> fiddle with existing unambiguous parts of the language" game 

I wrote:
 "Given that we want want the phonological structure of cmevla to
 be as unconstrained as possible, was there any reason why the rule 
 wasn't something like "break the string up into pause- delimited 
 chunks, and then parse those chunks into the smallest possible licit 
 words"?"
I decided to ask the question on Lojban List because it is a 
straightforward question of fact that nonjboskepre might be
competent to comment insightfully on, and the answer to which might
be of interest even to those not interested in jboske arcana.

We have been scrupulously keeping frightening jboske arcana off this 
list. If you in turn want a forum where any technical question 
whatever is banned, and where you may unobjectionably write a response
that ignores the question, traduces it into something completely
different and then inveighs against the traductive version, then
go set up your own list for this purpose, announce it as being
for this purpose, and I promise not to post to it. In the meantime, 
pipe down and try to confine your responses to occasions when you 
have something reasonable and, ideally, constructive to say. Or,
if you feel that that constrains your freedom of expression unduly,
let's at least agree that it would not be discourteous of me to
ignore your replies.

--And.