From araizen@newmail.net Tue Dec 10 02:05:37 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 10 Dec 2002 10:05:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 43601 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 10:05:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Dec 2002 10:05:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 10:05:35 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18LhGh-0006wS-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 02:05:35 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LhFv-0006w9-00; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 02:04:47 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Dec 2002 02:04:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs.huji.ac.il ([132.65.16.30] ident=exim) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LhFq-0006vy-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 02:04:43 -0800 Received: from gx-57.cs.huji.ac.il ([132.65.180.57] helo=newmail.net ident=araizen) by cs.huji.ac.il with esmtp id 18LhFk-0004rW-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:04:36 +0200 Message-ID: <3DF5BC34.4060701@newmail.net> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:04:36 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: let's get rid of this lojban == loglan crap (was Re: tags) References: <3E04B1D8@webmail.uic.edu> <20021210034233.GB44058@allusion.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-archive-position: 3386 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: araizen@newmail.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Adam Raizen Reply-To: araizen@newmail.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=3063669 X-Yahoo-Profile: araizen la djorden. cusku di'e > I'm not a LLG member, so I can't official propose this for the next > meeting (afaik). However, as a member of the community I would > like to ask that at the next LLG meeting the "lojban is loglan" > statement be considered for revokation. There was a very difficult and expensive legal battle fought over this, and those who participated in it would probably not want their effort to be nullified, and historically Lojban is related to Loglan, so at least for those reasons it would probably be difficult to straight-out revoke the "lojban is loglan" statement. I think that a clarification is in order, though. mu'o mi'e .adam.