From pycyn@aol.com Thu Oct 03 12:34:15 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 3 Oct 2002 19:34:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 52417 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2002 19:34:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Oct 2002 19:34:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m07.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.162) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2002 19:34:14 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.195.e4f30c1 (3956) for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:34:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <195.e4f30c1.2acdf5ae@aol.com> Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:34:06 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_195.e4f30c1.2acdf5ae_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_195.e4f30c1.2acdf5ae_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/3/2002 11:43:36 AM Central Daylight Time, xod@thestonecutters.net writes: << > Records are fine, but they need to written on a level that all jboka'e can > understand. All the Records I've seen were incomprehensibly dense. >> Complex technical questions require complex technical answers. If they give rise to simple questions, then simple answers will be available. So far as I can tell, with the exception of the {ka}-{du'u}-{ce'u} complex (where people criticized every view proposed and then rejected every compromise that satisfied their objection, finally going back to the position which had led to the criticism in the first place -- and I get accused of wasting time!), no topic of fervent debate has had much in the way of implication for usage -- at least not that anyone has cited. ( The {ka} et al fisco is the main reason for no further Records: I realized that neither reporting the various positions nor formulating ways around the objections nor opting for one position over others was going to be an acceptable conclusion of a debate, so there was little point in summing it up if it was only going to continue or start again -- or end with no reference to the debate at all, as happened in this case.) --part1_195.e4f30c1.2acdf5ae_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/3/2002 11:43:36 AM Central Daylight Time, xod@thestonecutters.net writes:

<<

Records are fine, but they need to written on a level that all jboka'e can
understand. All the Records I've seen were incomprehensibly dense.

>>
Complex technical questions require complex technical answers. If they give rise to simple questions, then simple answers will be available. So far as I can tell, with the exception of the {ka}-{du'u}-{ce'u} complex (where people criticized every view proposed and then rejected every compromise that satisfied their objection, finally going back to the position which had led to the criticism in the first place -- and I get accused of wasting time!), no topic of fervent debate has had much in the way of implication for usage -- at least not that anyone has cited.
( The {ka} et al fisco is the main reason for no further Records: I realized that neither reporting the various positions nor formulating ways around the objections nor opting for one position over others was going to be an acceptable conclusion of a debate, so there was little point in summing it up if it was only going to continue or start again -- or end with no reference to the debate at all, as happened in this case.)
--part1_195.e4f30c1.2acdf5ae_boundary--