From pycyn@aol.com Fri Sep 07 01:32:42 2001
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 08:32:42 -0000
Received: (qmail 17084 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 08:32:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26)
  by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 08:32:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r06.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.102)
  by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 08:32:41 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
  by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.65.1a5ae341 (4012)
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 04:32:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <65.1a5ae341.28c9e027@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 04:32:39 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] Another stab at a Record on ce'u
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_65.1a5ae341.28c9e027_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535
From: pycyn@aol.com

--part1_65.1a5ae341.28c9e027_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 9/6/2001 8:00:54 PM Central Daylight Time, 
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:


> But I think we also agreed that these rules aren't worth the trouble,
> so there's no point answering my objections unless you do believe your
> proposal to still be worth discussing.
> 

Well, worth is hard to determine, but I think the best rule is simply to put 
in all the ones you really mean to use. I can demonstrate the efficiency of 
the alternate version, but not the practicality of using it, so drop it. And 
rewite the earlier stuff to the new standard, as far as possible, I think.

--part1_65.1a5ae341.28c9e027_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 9/6/2001 8:00:54 PM Central Daylight Time, 
<BR>a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">But I think we also agreed that these rules aren't worth the trouble,
<BR>so there's no point answering my objections unless you do believe your
<BR>proposal to still be worth discussing.
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>Well, worth is hard to determine, but I think the best rule is simply to put 
<BR>in all the ones you really mean to use. &nbsp;I can demonstrate the efficiency of 
<BR>the alternate version, but not the practicality of using it, so drop it. &nbsp;And 
<BR>rewite the earlier stuff to the new standard, as far as possible, I think.</FONT></HTML>

--part1_65.1a5ae341.28c9e027_boundary--

