From sbelknap@UIC.EDU Wed Dec 04 16:00:51 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 5 Dec 2002 00:00:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 63774 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2002 00:00:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Dec 2002 00:00:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2002 00:00:49 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18JjRh-000666-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 16:00:49 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18JjRZ-00065l-00; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 16:00:41 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 04 Dec 2002 16:00:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from larch.cc.uic.edu ([128.248.155.164]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18JjRS-00065X-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 16:00:34 -0800 Received: (qmail 15099 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2002 00:00:26 -0000 Received: from webmail.cc.uic.edu (HELO webmail.uic.edu) (128.248.121.50) by larch.cc.uic.edu with SMTP; 5 Dec 2002 00:00:26 -0000 X-WebMail-UserID: sbelknap@uic.edu Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 18:00:27 -0600 To: lojban-list , rmcivor@macsrule.com X-EXP32-SerialNo: 50000146 Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglan Message-ID: <3DF3D744@webmail.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Mailer: InterChange (Hydra) SMTP v3.62 X-archive-position: 3022 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: sbelknap@uic.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: sbelknap Reply-To: sbelknap@uic.edu X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810567 So, progress. 1. Nick, And, lojbab, and possibly others seem willing to include some sort of recognition of the Loglan roots of lojban. I rather like And's statement. 2. A Loglan-lojban word list seems possible given the apparent lack of objection by the CEO of TLI. 3. Some interesting differences in philosophy are evident between LLG and TLI 4. Some of the Loglan history of lojban may actually be relevant to current discussion of the baseline policy. About this poaching business I can only express mystification. I just don't get it. I generally favor transparency of intellectual capital. I see no reason why LLG should be unwilling to share their membership list with TLI. Why not? I consider it extraordinarily unlikely that such an exchange would harm the vitality of either group. Seems like a win-win to me. Would an exchange of membership lists between the two groups be considered less objectionable? What about TLI conveying LLG's invitation to the TLI membership? Perhaps there are issues I don't understand. -Steven