[lojban] Re: Nick will be with you shortly

[Robin Lee Powell <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 05:52:44PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 11:48:36AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:08:38PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:49:30PM -0500, Craig wrote:
> > > > >is too baroque to be acceptable (or that there is no problem
> > > > >with {loi} to be solved), but I'll just have to lump it.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't know what the problem with {loi} is, and when the BPFK
> > > > appears and we all get a veto I will veto any change to {loi}
> > > > that doesn't demonstrate that there is one. In fact, I plan to
> > > > veto any change to the language that doesn't solve a problem
> > > > which is either obvious or explained in the proposal; the BPFK
> > > > should not act lightly. But, if the jposkepre have been able to
> > > > put much effort into {loi}, then I'm sure there is a problem and
> > > > that their proposal will explain it to us.
> > > 
> > > There is no problem with loi.
> > 
> > Since more than one competent lojbanist disagrees with you, you are
> > prima facia wrong, even if all your points are correct.
> 
> Huh?  This is a fallacy (argumentum ad populum).  Statements have a
> particular truth value regardless of what we believe about them.

Whether or not there is a problem with lojban is defined by the opinions
of lojbanists, nothing more, nothing less.  Enough lojbanists have
expressed the opinion that there is a problem that their beliefs mean
that there is a problem.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/    ***    I'm a *male* Robin.
.i le pamoi velru'e zo'u crepu le plibu taxfu
.i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai
http://www.lojban.org/   ***   to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi