From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Dec 10 10:55:26 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 18:55:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 52261 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 18:55:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Dec 2002 18:55:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 18:55:26 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18LpXS-0002kQ-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:55:26 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LpXP-0002k7-00; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:55:23 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:55:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18LpXL-0002jy-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:55:19 -0800 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:55:19 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: let's get rid of this lojban == loglan crap (was Re: tags) Message-ID: <20021210185519.GO11342@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <3E04B1D8@webmail.uic.edu> <20021210034233.GB44058@allusion.net> <3DF5BC34.4060701@newmail.net> <3DF5CC5A.7000707@bilkent.edu.tr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DF5CC5A.7000707@bilkent.edu.tr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 3406 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 01:13:30PM +0200, robin wrote: > Adam Raizen wrote: > >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. > > > > How about something like "Lojban is a variant of Loglan". Or > "development" or whatever. Sounds good to me. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u jmaji le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi