From sbelknap@UIC.EDU Wed Dec 04 17:23:47 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 01:23:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 86641 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2002 01:23:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Dec 2002 01:23:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2002 01:23:47 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Jkjy-00070i-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:23:46 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Jkjv-00070Q-00; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:23:43 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:23:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from larch.cc.uic.edu ([128.248.155.164]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Jkjp-00070F-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:23:37 -0800 Received: (qmail 25526 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2002 01:23:35 -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 01:23:35 -0000 X-WebMail-UserID: sbelknap@uic.edu Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 19:23:07 -0600 To: , a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-EXP32-SerialNo: 50000146 Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglan Message-ID: <3DF41BB0@webmail.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Mailer: InterChange (Hydra) SMTP v3.62 X-archive-position: 3030 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 >===== Original Message From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk ===== >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. My sentiments exactly. I believe lojbanistan has much to gain from cooperating with Bob McIvor and the other remaining active Loglanders. The remaining animosity of some lojbanistani has much of the flavor of the battle of New Orleans. -Steven