Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:34:06 EDT

In a message dated 10/3/2002 11:43:36 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] 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.)