From lojbab@lojban.org Sun Dec 01 21:25:11 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 2 Dec 2002 05:25:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 78360 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 05:25:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2002 05:25:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao02.cox.net) (68.1.17.243) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 05:25:10 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20021202052508.SKFY2203.lakemtao02.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 00:25:08 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20021201235149.00aba240@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 00:18:32 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Loglan In-Reply-To: References: <20021201195046.R52499-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab At 10:30 PM 12/1/02 -0600, Steven Belknap wrote: >On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 07:16 PM, Invent Yourself wrote: > > You wrote: > > "I can not support a lojban baseline policy statement which does not cover > > Loglan. A joint lojban/Loglan toggling cmavo would satisfy me." > > > > Threatening to reject the new policy is hardly "expressing mild > > support". > >I expressed mild support for a toggling cmavo, one possible means of >addressing the Loglan issue. I also expressed a willingness to consider >other possible means of addressing the Loglan issue. I have already >voted "no" to the proposed baseline policy statement because it >completely ignores Loglan. The lojban community cannot on the one hand >say "lojban is Loglan" and on the other hand completely ignore Loglan >in its policy statements. Actually it can. Having made that pronouncement, and question about the policy for Loglan is to point to the policy for Lojban. By that approach, the TLI version of the language does not exist for us. > > I'm sure the significance of the fact that there are no Loglanists > > voicing > > their support for any of your measures, while one newbie has already > > announced discomfort at this Loglan talk is completely lost on you. Go > > right on believing that you're defending the interests of newcomers. > >Silence could be disinterest, as you suggest. Or perhaps it is a lack >of awareness that lojban exists. xod and many other recent Lojbanists seem to think that anyone not on the net isn't worth paying much attention to, and those on the net who are interested in Loglan, would have found it, and us, by now. In contrast to this, Athelstan considers the Internet to be evil and dehumanizing, and he wants us disengage from the net. We can't please everyone %^). lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org