From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Oct 09 22:37:34 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 10 Oct 2002 05:37:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 81445 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2002 05:37:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Oct 2002 05:37:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Oct 2002 05:37:29 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17zW4I-0000yt-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 09 Oct 2002 22:41:06 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17zW26-0000xn-00; Wed, 09 Oct 2002 22:38:50 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 09 Oct 2002 22:38:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from miranda.org ([209.58.150.153] ident=qmailr) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17zW1x-0000xS-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2002 22:38:41 -0700 Received: (qmail 29074 invoked by uid 534); 10 Oct 2002 05:33:57 -0000 Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 23:33:57 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage deciding (was: RE: Re: [Announcement] The Alice Translation Has Moved And Changed Message-ID: <20021009233357.D3704@miranda.org> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021009134220.031c4310@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from a.rosta@lycos.co.uk on Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 04:09:00AM +0100 X-archive-position: 2100 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jkominek@miranda.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jay F Kominek From: Jay F Kominek Reply-To: jkominek@miranda.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 04:09:00AM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > There was something approximating a consensus that there should be a > baseline, but not necessarily on the reasons for it existing (the > extremes would be that the baseline is an absolute unchallengeable > definition of the language and that the baseline is a vacuous PR > gimmick). If it is true that content of the baseline ever > represented a snapshot of what the consensus was at some point in > time, that point in time must have antedated the baseline by several > years, for in the five years prior to the baseline I don't recall > there being any attempt to establish whether there was > consensus. Rather, the content of the baseline was presented as a > fait accompli that, by virtue of being a realization of antique > Loglan goals, was immune from the need to be subject to consensus. Having in the past read the meeting minutes extensively, I don't recall anyone putting themselves on record as saying that the baseline was a bad thing, or that it should not happen. Nor do I recall anyone making motions to abandon it. How about you make a motion (by proxy, if need be) next year to end the baseline? If it is some how a fait accompli trick which has been pulled over the poor unsuspecting membership, then you might actually get a second for such a motion. -- Jay Kominek