From rob@twcny.rr.com Thu Sep 27 12:44:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 27 Sep 2001 19:44:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 96674 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2001 19:44:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.4.52 with QMQP; 27 Sep 2001 19:44:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout5.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.122) by mta2 with SMTP; 27 Sep 2001 19:44:51 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f8RJimo27262 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:44:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:43:48 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15mh4L-0000EP-00 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:43:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:43:35 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] The Pleasures of goi (was: zipf computations & experimental cmavo Message-ID: <20010927154335.B673@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: <3BB37B6C.7010607@reutershealth.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3BB37B6C.7010607@reutershealth.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 03:18:04PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Hmm, no, of course it's a reassignment. I must furiously to think. > > > > no'u probably works like you think goi already does: > > > > ko'a goi la djan. .i li'o .i la fred. no'u ko'a > > ko'a is John. Fred is John. > > > By no means: saying "ko'a no'u la djan." is bogus if ko'a is not > *already* defined. The whole point of goi (and cei) is their > defining nature. Makes sense to me. And before I got to reading this idea I was afraid I'd have to go back to wanting asymmetric goi. > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html states my position. > I use two different mail clients, one of which makes it very difficult > to remove the author as a direct recipient. Hey, I get almost all > emails twice and some three times from certain mailing lists, and > I've learned to live with it. One of this guy's reasons (which he repeats a lot, in different forms) is that if everyone used Elm, leaving reply-to alone would be better in every way. Mutt handles replying to the sender instead of the reply-to just fine, but you don't see me making decrees about how the Internet should work based on that. His "principle of least surprise" is just shooting himself in the foot, now that every mailing list I've seen but this one munges the header, and on this list I often see people accidentally replying personally when they don't mean to. He never takes into account that it annoys people to get two responses, especially if they sort mailing list messages into separate folders, and thus you have to change the recipient _anyway_ to reply to a group with "Reply to All" or people complain. As I just have. -- la rab.spir noi sarji le se spuda nu galfi