Subject: [lojban] Re: the ethics of the HTML content meta tag

From: Steven Belknap <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:06:50 -0600

On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 02:05 PM, Jay F Kominek wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 11:57:06AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 02:25:39PM -0500, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
>>> At 10:54 AM 12/10/02 -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>>>>> The previous lojban web site had a link to Loglan. For reasons
>>>>> that elude me, you changed this to conform to your own
>>>>> point-of-view.
>>>>
>>>> What are you *talking* about?
>>>>
>>>> Here is an exact mirror of the old site:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.digitalkingdom.org/www.lojban.org.old/
>>>>
>>>> Please show me where there are links to loglan.
>>>
>>> The only thing I can see is the intro paragraph, which you did 
>>> change,
>>> But I think for other reasons than those which Steven imputes.
>>
>> That is not a link, for the record. And Jay actually re-wrote the 
>> front
>> page, although he shouldn't be blamed for any mistakes, as it's my 
>> site.
>
> I intentionally omitted any reference to Loglan when I wrote the text,
> and I continue to stand by that omission.

The lojban.org web site was not the place to unilaterally have made 
whatever point you were making. This issue was discussed on the 
listserv a number of years ago, and as a result of this discussion 
links to loglan.org were added. If you disagreed with the mention of 
Loglan on the web site and with the links to loglan.org, the proper 
approach would have been to discuss your concerns either privately with 
lojbab and robin, or to bring the issue to the listserv. I was very 
disappointed when I noticed that the TLI Loglan references were gone, 
but I decided to let the matter go for a time, due to the recent death 
of JCB. But when I saw that the LLG Loglan baseline policy omitted any 
mention of TLI Loglan, I became very concerned. I realize that perhaps 
you (and others) don't really care about the history of Loglan and 
believe that my concerns about this issue are foolish. I certainly 
agree that that Loglan is dead, and I gave up on TLI Loglan long ago. 
But then, what's the use of trying to explain. Nao, buo no, levi vizgoi 
ga duodja lopo lentaa la Loglan.

-Steven