From lojbab@lojban.org Wed Dec 04 19:24:12 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 5 Dec 2002 03:24:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 56516 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2002 03:24:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Dec 2002 03:24:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao02.cox.net) (68.1.17.243) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2002 03:24:05 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20021205032403.LYX2203.lakemtao02.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 22:24:03 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20021204221533.030d4d60@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 22:16:55 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Loglan In-Reply-To: References: <7CE820FF-07DC-11D7-A3CE-00039362FD2A@macsrule.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab At 01:13 AM 12/5/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote: >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. If Bob (McIvor) thinks this is workable on his end, I am certainly supportive from our end. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org