From lojbab@lojban.org Tue Dec 10 04:22:33 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 10 Dec 2002 12:22:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 13670 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 12:22:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Dec 2002 12:22:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao04.cox.net) (68.1.17.241) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 12:22:32 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20021210122232.QSFX1248.lakemtao04.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 07:22:32 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20021210065631.032d8430@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 07:04:21 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] let's get rid of this lojban == loglan crap (was Re: tags) In-Reply-To: <20021210034233.GB44058@allusion.net> References: <3E04B1D8@webmail.uic.edu> <3E04B1D8@webmail.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab At 09:42 PM 12/9/02 -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote: >I'm not a LLG member, so I can't official propose this for the next >meeting (afaik). Yes, you are. You aren't a voting member, but a member of the community. The voting membership is a legal device to manage the business of the community, but there are many voting members that consider it their job to serve as representatives for the greater community. As we go into online meetings, I'm hoping we can have orderly meetings and also allow the larger community to sit in on the meeting if they wish. The details of the meeting and how it will be run haven't been worked on yet. >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. I suspect that it will come up. %^) There will in any case be a call for agenda items in the spring. >If the statement truely would be intended to describe what kind of >conlang lojban is, we should make it "lojban is an engelang" or >"lojban is a engineered language". However I think the LLG has no >reason to have such a statement of the category of the language, >so I would suggest that no new statement regarding this subject >replace the old. The statement was NOT a statement of category, but a unilateral declaration of an end to the war with TLI, stating that we had won. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org 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