From sbelknap@UIC.EDU Tue Dec 10 09:06:35 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: sbelknap@uic.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 10 Dec 2002 17:06:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 63794 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 17:06:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Dec 2002 17:06:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO birch.cc.uic.edu) (128.248.155.162) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 17:06:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 31196 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 17:06:26 -0000 Received: from cis5044.uicomp.uic.edu (HELO uic.edu) (128.248.250.44) by birch.cc.uic.edu with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 17:06:26 -0000 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 08:40:40 -0600 Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: html tag ethics Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com To: Robert LeChevalier In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20021210055644.03166600@pop.east.cox.net> Message-Id: <5ABDCA94-0C4D-11D7-A99A-000393629ED4@uic.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) From: Steven Belknap X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810567 On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 05:15 AM, Robert LeChevalier wrote: >> Even you refer to "Loglan", meaning TLI's implementation of JCB's >> idea, > > We officially use "TLI Loglan" to refer to JCB's language. If we were > to > only use "Loglan" to refer to JCB's language, and only use "Lojban" for > ours, we could undo the court-ruling that "Loglan" is generic. I would prefer to use TLI Loglan to refer to the ancestor language and Loglan to refer to the currently active language. In the interests of clarity for those who lack a full appreciation for the history of the language, I have agreed to use LLG Loglan for the active language for a brief time. I will now only use lojban when writing in LLG Loglan. Which reminds me that all this political nonsense is interfering with my actual learning of LLG Loglan. >>> => using keywords in the meta description tag which is not related >>> to the >>> page content" >> >>> Loglan is certainly "related" to lojban. Some people say lojban *is* >>> Loglan. >>> (I think they are different words in different languages for the same >> thing.) >> >> You know full well that's not the kind of relationship they mean. > > I don't think he does. Correct. I meant what I said. If somebody has a better interpretation of the official LLG position "lojban is Loglan", please tell us. > > But the bottom line is that we are trying to cooperate with TLI, not to > undercut them (at this stage, they'll live or die without our help), > and > perceptions can be more important than reality. If we start promoting > "Loglan" on our web pages merely in order to get hits from Steven's 500 > looking for Loglan, it LOOKS to everyone else like "hype" and > "poaching", > and will be understood by TLI and by most readers as such. It would be > better to negotiate a relationship whereby TLI puts a more prominent > link > on their page pointing to ours as another implementation of JCB's ideas > with an active community, and we put a respectful link on our page > acknowledging their site as documenting what we recognize as the > predecessor language to Lojban. This is honest, aboveboard, and > communicates the way the languages relate to each other. > > That is the sort of thing I am trying to do with Bob McIvor (and if > he and > Robin want to work out mutually acceptable wording for mutual pointers > along the lines I describe above, I approve) I support this approach. When the web pages mutually link and the two communities are comfortably at peace, I would support going a step further-including Loglan in the title of the lojban.org web page. -Steven