From xod@thestonecutters.net Tue Sep 10 11:16:26 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 10 Sep 2002 18:16:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 58332 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 18:16:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Sep 2002 18:16:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 18:16:26 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17opYo-0006as-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:16:26 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17opY7-0006aI-00; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:15:44 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:15:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17opY0-0006a9-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:15:37 -0700 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8AIFZB69617 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:15:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:15:35 -0400 (EDT) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: Re: word for "www" (was: Archive location.) In-Reply-To: <20020910175215.GD6798@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Message-ID: <20020910140316.F68275-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 1024 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Invent Yourself Reply-To: xod@thestonecutters.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=110189215 X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > I think that picking lujvo that are *guaranteed* to become obsolete and > are, in fact, already ambigous is pointless at best and moronic at > worst. I see you are turning this into a personal flame war. Since I don't think people will continue to read past what seems to be becoming a personal argument, I'll reserve my responses for other posts less likely to annoy the readers, and preferably, for those who have read and comprehended the entirety and subtlety of the original arguments. -- Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike on Iraq. There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that act of terrorism. Why would that event change the situation? -- Howard Zinn