From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Wed Dec 04 17:11:50 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 01:11:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 99516 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2002 01:11:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Dec 2002 01:11:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2002 01:11:48 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18JkYO-0006vz-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:11:48 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18JkYJ-0006vi-00; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:11:44 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:11:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp05.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.115]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18JkYE-0006uX-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:11:39 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-69-185.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.69.185]) by lmsmtp05.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81BD1FCC1 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 02:11:06 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglan Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 01:13:16 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <7CE820FF-07DC-11D7-A3CE-00039362FD2A@macsrule.com> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-archive-position: 3028 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Bob: > 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 Speaking just for myself, I think it would be great if a joint statement from TLI and LLG was sent to members of both groups. The statement could make it clear that each group wishes to be welcoming to the other (etc. etc.), and could perhaps also give an honest appraisal of the current situation, which, as I see it, is that as language designs the two are pretty much equivalent (and hence can justly be seen as alternate incarnations of the same underlying design), but in levels of active participation are massively discrepant. --And.