From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Nov 03 19:37:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 4 Nov 2001 03:37:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 61635 invoked from network); 4 Nov 2001 03:37:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Nov 2001 03:37:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Nov 2001 03:37:50 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.87.20]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20011104033748.SXTE5686.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 03:37:48 +0000 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] lo with discourse-scope? Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 03:37:05 -0000 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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Xod: > On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Rob Speer wrote: > > Precisely. Hence I was wondering why there wasn't more of an outcry when > > (against all probability) PC and And both agreed about that. > > I guess nobody was paying attention. But a cabal of non-users cannot > eviscerate my da so easily. Nobody's pronouncements have legislative force any longer, so your da can be whatever it likes. But if you would eviscerate your da yourself if a cabal of non-users demonstrated that it flouted the laws of logic, then maybe its bowels' days are numbered. --And.