From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Jul 25 00:46:47 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 25 Jul 2002 07:46:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 42542 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2002 07:46:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Jul 2002 07:46:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao01.cox.net) (68.1.17.244) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jul 2002 07:46:46 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20020725074645.FZZW29627.lakemtao01.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 03:46:45 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020725033153.0342dc80@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: lojbab@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 03:41:54 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] to-do list (was Re: New Members, Board of Directors, other LogFest results) In-Reply-To: <20020725035419.GJ17369@chain.digitalkingdom.org> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020724195628.032f4c80@pop.east.cox.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020723195058.030913c0@pop.east.cox.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020723025544.032cba90@pop.east.cox.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20010730221611.00b10c00@pop.cais.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20020723025544.032cba90@pop.east.cox.net> <20020723103956.E28971@miranda.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20020723195058.030913c0@pop.east.cox.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020724122649.032e7ec0@pop.east.cox.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020724195628.032f4c80@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Bob LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab At 08:54 PM 7/24/02 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: >On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 09:28:12PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > > I think that anything that is official needs to have been reviewed > > heavily by SOMEONE, preferably more than one "someones", who have > > established credibility for technical knowledge of the language. > >Purely out of curiosity, I'm curious if I count, both in your eyes and >others'. I like to think I'm pretty good with lojban, but 'technical >knowledge'? I dunno. I have to honestly say that I have read so little of the technical discussions in the last year that I have no opinion of my own, and I have no idea what others opinion of your technical judgement is, which is what really matters. I generally have tried to avoid rating people myself because politically, any judgments I make of someone that are lower than they think of themselves as being could cost me their work on the project. I would rather view the consensus of others. The only exception for me is that writing in Lojban, such that others respond and answer back in Lojban, shows a minimum communication competence. Anyone who can maintain a conversation with xod or xorxes therefore has proven themselves to be above the beginner level. > > On the other hand, it mattered a lot to Hartmut to have "official" > > support for his efforts to get Lojban used in the European Patent > > Office, even though LLG with its American-heavy membership would seem > > to have little reason to be listened to by the EPO. > >See!? That's what I've been saying: official approval costs you >nothing, and it makes people happy. I think he wants more than verbal approval though. For him, official support would be a promotional page on our web site with links to his, official priority given to developing a sample patent text in Lojban to demonstrate its practicality. In short, people seem to think "official" means that we (and in practice >I<) will be actively supporting the effort. -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org