From ragnarok@pobox.com Mon Dec 31 20:30:06 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 1 Jan 2002 04:30:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 6075 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2002 04:30:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Jan 2002 04:30:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Jan 2002 04:30:05 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AB586C5B0022; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 23:30:16 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] What are you doing now?? Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 23:30:09 -0500 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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <179.199a23f.2962808c@aol.com> Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >How is this Lojban related? We have enough pains in the butt with latin scrip[t without bringing in yet one (or two or three) more. I don't care if you do >it (I do it myself from time to time -- trying to fill various grids for example) but don't call it Lojban. It is no more or less lojbanic than the use of Tengwar or Cyrillic or even of the letter h instead of ' - I don't see you ranting about And writing 'fuhivla' instead of 'fu'ivla' - and while I agree that some of the things I listed aren't the most lojbanic of uses the community was ASKED, so if you aren't interested in tangential issues don't read the thread.