From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Thu Dec 05 18:58:44 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Dec 2002 02:58:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 45516 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 02:58:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2002 02:58:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 02:58:43 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18K8hO-0004s6-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:58:42 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18K8gJ-0004rJ-00; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:57:35 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:57:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.113]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18K8fZ-0004qf-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:56:49 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-59-212.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.59.212]) by lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D3493D09C for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 03:56:15 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglan Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 02:58:26 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <50FFF184-0890-11D7-A3CE-00039362FD2A@macsrule.com> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-archive-position: 3108 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Bob McIvor: > On Mercredi, déce 4, 2002, at 20:13 US/Eastern, And Rosta wrote: > > 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 Given that Bob McIvor, Lojbab and John Cowan are all supportive of this, what is the next step necessary to get it actioned? If nobody else volunteers to draft a joint statement, I will, though I would prefer that somebody more familiar with the history and cultures of the two communities do it. --And.