From gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch Tue Sep 18 05:29:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 18 Sep 2001 12:29:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 16872 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2001 12:29:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.222 with QMQP; 18 Sep 2001 12:29:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta2n.bluewin.ch) (195.186.1.211) by mta3 with SMTP; 18 Sep 2001 12:29:47 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (213.3.45.184) by mta2n.bluewin.ch (5.5.044) id 3BA6D99E0002ABB4 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 14:29:46 +0200 Message-ID: <000601c1403d$8d91a640$b82d03d5@oemcomputer> To: References: <1000776407.4714.21558.l8@yahoogroups.com> Subject: Re: META : Who is everyone (and what are they saying) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 14:05:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 From: "G. Dyke" la. rab.spir. cusku di'e Sounds interesting, maybe you could share the outline of your presentation with us. Reminds me of a set of limeriks: There was a young man who said xod. must find it exceedingly odd if you think that this tree ceases to be when theres noone about in the quad to which the reply was: Young man your reasoning's odd I'm always about in the quad which is why the tree will continue to be since observed by yours faithfully, xod. (of course it was "God" in the original) la xod. cusku di'e <> I figured it out from the fact that all the things attributed to "xod", if I > searched my inbox, turned out to be from "Invent Yourself" - where does that > name come from, anyway? It's good advice, don't you think?> Nice rhetorical question to hide the fact that you *still* aren't saying what xod. means... cu'u la kreig. for obvious reason?? But you know, if you think about it there are loads of gismu that would then be needed: "nidja" x1 is the knee-jerk reaction of x2 with purpose the destruction of besto x3 when besto x4 proves unsufficient for reason x5 cu'u la and. [Mind you, nonshadowiness of net identities is an illusion, because on the occasions when I've met net pals in the flesh it's been a big shock, and it likewise is, when say, I discover Rob was born in 1983 (how is it physically *possible* for someone to have been born so recently and not be a babe in arms!). And Nick, when he met me was surprised to find I wasn't quite the cantankerous old curmudgeonly git he'd supposed me to be -- for one thing, I was younger than he'd thought...] Even lojban (albeit after a rather long incubation period) was born later than rob, craig and me (and others... tsali for instance), maybe *you* aren't as young as you were yesterday (that's true of most of us ;-) As I'm deleting loads of stuff from the digest, I couldn't resist leaving this for those who abandoned And's post a little too early: < As opposed to the small minority that speaks for itself with glorious incessance. --And. > How do you guys who *do* work manage to keep your jobs? cu'u la pycyn < In general? Well, I do try to do the best I can with whatever position I get dealt, so, if you aren't good at arguing -- or are more involved in egotripping than working out a sensible positiona and defending it -- then it can be a rough experience. After all, I have been working with this process professionally since 1957, which gives me a leg up (and a lot of background in dirty tricks if all else fails). > Oh! I'd best watch my step: either I argue too well and get nidja (le nidja be la pycyn. fu lenu ri jinga djica) or I get written off as a hopeless student of '85 %^> mi'e greg.