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

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:22:47 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> 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.)

The other way to see it is that enough people joined in the discussion,
which was kept at level for such to occur, that people reached a consensus
and they knew what it was.

As far as I remember, the same occurred with vo'a.

-- 
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