From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Dec 10 10:57:23 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 18:57:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 96162 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 18:57:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Dec 2002 18:57:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 18:57:23 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18LpZL-0002mJ-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:57:23 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LpZI-0002m0-00; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:57:20 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:57:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18LpZD-0002lr-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:57:15 -0800 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:57:15 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: let's get rid of this lojban == loglan crap (was Re: tags) Message-ID: <20021210185715.GP11342@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <3E04B1D8@webmail.uic.edu> <3E04B1D8@webmail.uic.edu> <5.2.0.9.0.20021210065631.032d8430@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20021210065631.032d8430@pop.east.cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 3407 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 07:04:21AM -0500, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > At 09:42 PM 12/9/02 -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote: > >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. 'k. As a voting member, I also would like some clarification on this. > >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. Aaaah. That's a good start. 8) Doubt it'll be enough to get people to STFU, but it's a good start none the less. -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