From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Dec 05 12:30:17 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 20:30:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 20975 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2002 20:30:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Dec 2002 20:30:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2002 20:30:15 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18K2dT-0001QA-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 12:30:15 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18K2cx-0001PU-00; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 12:29:43 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 05 Dec 2002 12:29:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-server2.tampabay.rr.com ([65.32.1.39]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18K2cr-0001PK-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 12:29:37 -0800 Received: from macsrule.com (85.78.33.65.cfl.rr.com [65.33.78.85]) by smtp-server2.tampabay.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gB5KTaTd029760 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:29:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:29:55 -0500 Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <50FFF184-0890-11D7-A3CE-00039362FD2A@macsrule.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) X-archive-position: 3088 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rmcivor@macsrule.com Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robert McIvor From: Robert McIvor Reply-To: rmcivor@macsrule.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out 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