From pycyn@aol.com Sat Sep 21 10:06:59 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 21 Sep 2002 17:06:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 36466 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2002 17:06:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Sep 2002 17:06:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d01.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.33) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Sep 2002 17:06:58 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.163.143e4d65 (4320) for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:06:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <163.143e4d65.2abe012e@aol.com> Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:06:54 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] corrigible vlaste? RE: Re: I like chocolate To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_163.143e4d65.2abe012e_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_163.143e4d65.2abe012e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/21/2002 8:46:36 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: << > It sounds like I should know what Loccan is, but I don't -- what is > it? >> I set it up about the same time you set up engelang, I think, but before I knew about your list. I thought you signed up originally, as I did on engelang, but neither has had muc movement over time -- engelang a bit more thn loCCAn, "for the third gneration logical language." It is in the Yahoo groups somewhere. << My experience is that xorxes is almost always right, and when he isn't he immediately changes his mind if his error is pointed out. If I point out a supposed error to him and he doesn't immediately change his mind, it means that probably he's right and I'm wrong. >> Mine, too. But that is only an indication, not a guarantee. In this case, the complexity, the incoherence and contradictions, and his general refusal to really get it all out leaves thinking this may be the exception. Even what he is trying to do remains unclear, let alone how he is to do it. I note in passing that none of all this violates the baseline so far, since neither the grammar nor vocab lists have been strictly violated. This could, were it to be successful, just be a rational reconstruction, an explanation at a deeper logical level of a surface phenomenon. Indeed, that is what my work here has explicitly been. But that line does require meeting some requirements and y'all ust haven't met even them yet. --part1_163.143e4d65.2abe012e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/21/2002 8:46:36 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:

<<

It sounds like I should know what Loccan is, but I don't -- what is
it?

>>
I set it up about the same time you set up engelang, I think, but before I knew about your list. I thought you signed up originally, as I did on engelang, but neither has had muc movement over time -- engelang a bit more thn loCCAn, "for the third gneration logical language." It is in the Yahoo groups somewhere.

<<
My experience is that xorxes is almost always right, and when he isn't
he immediately changes his mind if his error is pointed out. If I
point out a supposed error to him and he doesn't immediately change
his mind, it means that probably he's right and I'm wrong.
>>
Mine, too. But that is only an indication, not a guarantee. In this case, the complexity, the incoherence and contradictions, and his general refusal to really get it all out leaves thinking this may be the exception. Even what he is trying to do remains unclear, let alone how he is to do it.

I note in passing that none of all this violates the baseline so far, since neither the grammar nor vocab lists have been strictly violated. This could, were it to be successful, just be a rational reconstruction, an explanation at a deeper logical level of a surface phenomenon. Indeed, that is what my work here has explicitly been. But that line does require meeting some requirements and y'all ust haven't met even them yet.
--part1_163.143e4d65.2abe012e_boundary--