From sbelknap@UIC.EDU Tue Dec 03 09:10:30 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: sbelknap@uic.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 3 Dec 2002 17:10:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 60631 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2002 17:10:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2002 17:10:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO birch.cc.uic.edu) (128.248.155.162) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2002 17:10:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 6490 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2002 17:10:25 -0000 Received: from cis5044.uicomp.uic.edu (HELO uic.edu) (128.248.250.44) by birch.cc.uic.edu with SMTP; 3 Dec 2002 17:10:25 -0000 Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:10:02 -0600 Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Loglan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548) Cc: To: "And Rosta" In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <0FAAAA3B-06E2-11D7-BAFA-000393629ED4@uic.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) From: Steven Belknap X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810567 On Monday, December 2, 2002, at 07:22 PM, And Rosta wrote: > I would have thought that if the following motion was put forward > it would pass: > > We should contact TLI asking if they would assist us in contacting > the wider TLI membership to say "Despite the pain and acrimony > of the Lojban split, we believe that Lojban embodies the key > aims and principles of JCB and Loglan. Nowadays, Lojban has a > thriving community of users, while TLI Loglan appears to be > dormant and to have no likely prospects for revival. We would > like to cordially invite you to join the Lojban community and > to come and let us know what we can do to make you welcome and > to make the transition easier. Your presence among us would be > a valuable step towards the reunification of the Loglan community. > This invitation is unconditional, and joining the Lojban > community would not place you under any obligation." > > If something like that was put forward to the members meeting > for ratification, do you think that would satisfy your concerns? > > --And. Yes, that sounds great. -Steven