From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Dec 02 15:09:04 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 23:09:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 86992 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 23:09:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2002 23:09:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 23:09:04 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18IzgW-000371-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:09:04 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IzgT-00036j-00; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:09:01 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:09:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18IzgP-00036a-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:08:57 -0800 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 15:08:57 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Official Statement- LLG Board approves newbaseline policy Message-ID: <20021202230857.GR1520@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <0H6I00H92KUHHQ@mxout2.netvision.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0H6I00H92KUHHQ@mxout2.netvision.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 2914 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 12:53:33AM +0200, Adam Raizen wrote: > 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. Of *course* it can be done. This is a statement of LLG policy; it can be ammended or destroyed at *any* member's meeting by a vote of the membership. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u jmaji le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi