Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Loglan

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 22:16:55 -0500

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 [email-masked]
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