From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Dec 02 14:52:28 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 2 Dec 2002 22:52:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 65646 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 22:52:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2002 22:52:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 22:52:28 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18IzQS-0002vI-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 14:52:28 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IzQH-0002u0-00; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 14:52:17 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 02 Dec 2002 14:52:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mxout2.netvision.net.il ([194.90.9.21]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IzQ9-0002tQ-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 14:52:09 -0800 Received: from default ([62.0.148.201]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.8 (built Jul 12 2002)) with SMTP id <0H6I00H91KUGHQ@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 03 Dec 2002 00:51:54 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 00:53:33 +0200 Subject: [lojban] Re: Official Statement- LLG Board approves newbaseline policy To: "lojban-list@lojban.org" Message-id: <0H6I00H92KUHHQ@mxout2.netvision.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Foxmail 4.1 [eg] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 2909 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: araizen@cs.huji.ac.il Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Adam Raizen From: Adam Raizen Reply-To: araizen@cs.huji.ac.il X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out de'i li 2002-12-01 ti'u li 18:44:00 la'o zoi. Robert LeChevalier .zoi cusku di'e >I'll be honest. I advocated this approach for historical reasons based on >a precedent that others who aren't students of history may not >understand. The US Constitution was identically written by a select group >of respected leaders in closed session, and then offered for ratification >or rejection by the people of the 13 states (and not by their >representatives). One would have to get heavily into the lore of the times >to know why they did things this way, but I'll ask you to trust me that >there are plenty of parallels to our present situation including the fears >that factionalism would tear apart the new country/community. The US Constitution contains provisions for amending it, and several states ratified it only under the assumption that a bill of rights would be added. Maybe something like that would satisfy And: adding a clause which states that if a sufficiently large portion of the community feels the need to change something or add a statement of clarification, it could be done. mu'o mi'e .adam.