From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Aug 25 18:48:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 26 Aug 2001 01:48:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 62187 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2001 01:48:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Aug 2001 01:48:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta03-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.43) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Aug 2001 01:48:42 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.45]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010826014840.LVYM23687.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:48:40 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:47:53 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" pc: > arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > > They aren't frivolous quibbles. They are conflicting but eminently > reasonable desiderata: > > After the 5th or 10th or 15th solution, all of which work about equally well > but keep arising because y'all don't know what the hell you want, I think > "frivolous quibble" is apt. It takes time to find what we all collectively want, because we individually care relatively more and less about different things, like practicality, established usage, nonambiguity, syntax--meaning iconicity, and so forth. > Decide what you want, say that is the way things > work, and get on with it. This is exactly what we did. You and I are having this discussion only because when we did decide what we want and say that is the way things work, you then protested about it. --And.