From pycyn@aol.com Thu Nov 07 01:40:52 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 7 Nov 2002 09:40:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 97844 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2002 09:40:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Nov 2002 09:40:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m06.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.161) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Nov 2002 09:40:51 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.142.2243724 (25711) for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 04:40:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <142.2243724.2afb8f1f@aol.com> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 04:40:47 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: What the heck is this crap? To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_142.2243724.2afb8f1f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 8.0 for Windows US sub 230 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_142.2243724.2afb8f1f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/6/2002 5:41:31 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: << > I have in fact been making an effort to document jboske stuff on the > wiki. I'm sure I've missed tons of stuff, because there's so much > of it, and I don't document stuff where no clear majoritarian view > emerges. But at least I'm trying, and hopefully others will be too. >> Best of British luck to you! Maybe the wiki is a good place to do this, since it is marginally harder to respond with another version of an old argument again. << The secret is to try to summarize not the entire discussion, but only the eventual conclusions. >> Well, of late there have been precious few conclusions that are worth summarizing, though just laying out the possibilities would be some help. The really important thing, I think, however is to lay out the arguments so that, when the damn thing comes up again (and it will, despite our efforts), we can just say -- as xod is now doing -- see paragraph 3 or whatever. Otherwise, each newby will think he has found a new objection and launch sos again. Of course, every once in a while someone does find a new objection and that has to be dealt with -- but it would be nice to deal with the new piece without having to refight the old stuff over and over. --part1_142.2243724.2afb8f1f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/6/2002 5:41:31 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:
<<

I have in fact been making an effort to document jboske stuff on the
wiki. I'm sure I've missed tons of stuff, because there's so much
of it, and I don't document stuff where no clear majoritarian view
emerges. But at least I'm trying, and hopefully others will be too.

>>
Best of British luck to you! Maybe the wiki is a good place to do this, since it is marginally harder to respond with another version of an old argument again.

<<
The secret is to try to summarize not the entire discussion, but only
the eventual conclusions.
>>
Well, of late there have been precious few conclusions that are worth summarizing, though just laying out the possibilities would be some help. The really important thing, I think, however is to lay out the arguments so that, when the damn thing comes up again (and it will, despite our efforts), we can just say -- as xod is now doing -- see paragraph 3 or whatever. Otherwise, each newby will think he has found a new objection and launch sos again. Of course, every once in a while someone does find a new objection and that has to be dealt with -- but it would be nice to deal with the new piece without having to refight the old stuff over and over. --part1_142.2243724.2afb8f1f_boundary--