From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Dec 04 15:02:41 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 4 Dec 2002 23:02:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 67389 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2002 23:02:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Dec 2002 23:02:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2002 23:02:40 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18JiXQ-0005el-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 15:02:40 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18JiXI-0005eT-00; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 15:02:32 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 04 Dec 2002 15:02:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-server4.tampabay.rr.com ([65.32.1.43]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18JiXD-0005eK-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 15:02:27 -0800 Received: from macsrule.com (85.78.33.65.cfl.rr.com [65.33.78.85]) by smtp-server4.tampabay.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gB4N2Q1c018905 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 18:02:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 18:02:40 -0500 Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <7CE820FF-07DC-11D7-A3CE-00039362FD2A@macsrule.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) X-archive-position: 3019 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rmcivor@macsrule.com Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robert McIvor From: Robert McIvor Reply-To: rmcivor@macsrule.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Lundi, déce 2, 2002, at 00:18 US/Eastern, Nick Nicholas wrote: > Well recognition doesn't cost us anything. "Lojban is conceived in > the same spirit as Loglan and with the same goals, and has > significant structural overlap with Loglan; we welcome people > interested in Logical Languages to investigate our language. That extent of recognition would be sufficient to satisfy me > At least, you can. The LLG can, too. But personally, I think this > whole poaching Loglanists business is sleazy. I agree. > If the TLI regard as an > adversary, they're not giving us jack --- permission to compile a > two-way glossary, their membership list, this all hinges on their > consent and good will. I think the active hostility to LLG by TLI died with JCB. I made it one of my conditions for accepting to be CEO of TLI that I would cooperate with LLG, which was accepted by the Trustees. There is no objection on my part to preparing a two-way dictionary. As for the membership list, would LLG provide TLI with their membership list so we could attempt to poach their members? I think not. > (Remember, Bob was blocked by lawyers from > preparing a two-way dictionary in the first place. We can ask the TLI > if that block still stands, if you want; if someone wants to prepare > such a dictionary, I may or may not regard it as pointless, but I'm > not very well going to stop them.) > > policy. But to me, it is shriekingly arrogant. If Loglan is to die, > I'd rather it die like the craggish hermit on the mountain --- than > like Pan-Am. But if it does die, and Lojban still exists, then I would like to see it continue to recognize its Loglan heritage.