Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglan

From: Robert McIvor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:29:55 -0500

On Mercredi, déce 4, 2002, at 20:13 US/Eastern, 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.

I would be willing to go along with this.

Bob McIvor