From pycyn@aol.com Fri Dec 07 12:15:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_2); 7 Dec 2001 20:15:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 45267 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2001 20:15:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Dec 2001 20:15:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d06.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.38) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Dec 2001 20:15:53 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id r.12a.8aad144 (4588) for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:15:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <12a.8aad144.29427d77@aol.com> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:15:51 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] [WWWW] Big update! To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_12a.8aad144.29427d77_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_12a.8aad144.29427d77_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/7/2001 12:20:00 PM Central Standard Time, rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes: > Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. I do though. I wonder if you do. I am talking about the millions of people who actually use computers rather than do things to them. They are stuck with what they get and they deserve to be treated as well as the few who make their own or are at liberty to spend incredible amounts of time getting something better in the end. If Lojban is to grow, then it has to go beyond the limited group of this latter sort into the first groups (insofar as computers are essential to its growth -- and that seems at the moment to be completely). To hold this group in contempt, to treat them as remote second class, to ignore or deplore their tools is very bad policy indeed. Now, if it is impossible to build a page that works well for their tools and for the clique's, which group gets preference if expansion is the aim? Is it really impossible to make something that looks good on Netscape and also on other browsers? If so, assuming (as apparently is not now the case) that Netscape is the generally used browser, what is wrong with the other browwsers and what can be done to correct them? > > I am no longer going to converse with you on this thread. Your privilege, you leave either uncorrected or thinking that you don't know how to do your job. > > -Robin, who works with computers for a living, thankyouverymuch I wonder if this can be true, given your attitude toward those who really do work with computers in the daily grind. I suspect you work at them instead, caught up in the beauties of abstract elegance and indifferent to practical applications and use by tose who don't have the leisure to have built up a reservoir of technique and information to construct the "better" ways. --part1_12a.8aad144.29427d77_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/7/2001 12:20:00 PM Central Standard Time, rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes:


Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.


I do though.  I wonder if you do.  I am talking about the millions of people who actually use computers rather than do things to them.  They are stuck with what they get and they deserve to be treated as well as the few who make their own or are at liberty to spend incredible amounts of time getting something better in the end.  If Lojban is to grow, then it has to go beyond the limited group of this latter sort into the first groups (insofar as computers are essential to its growth -- and that seems at the moment to be completely).  To hold this group in contempt, to treat them as remote second class, to ignore or deplore their tools is very bad policy indeed.  Now, if it is impossible to build a page that works well for their tools and for the clique's, which group gets preference if expansion is the aim?  Is it really impossible to make something that looks good on Netscape and also on other browsers?  If so, assuming (as apparently is not now the case) that Netscape is the generally used browser, what is wrong with the other browwsers and what can be done to correct them?


I am no longer going to converse with you on this thread.


Your privilege, you leave either uncorrected or thinking that you don't know how to do your job.

-Robin, who works with computers for a living, thankyouverymuch


I wonder if this can be true, given your attitude toward those who really do work with computers in the daily grind.  I suspect you work at them instead, caught up in the beauties of abstract elegance and indifferent to practical applications and use by tose who don't have the leisure to have built up a reservoir of technique and information to construct the "better" ways.
 --part1_12a.8aad144.29427d77_boundary--