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

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 05:32:06 -0500

At 03:06 PM 12/11/02 -0600, Steven Belknap wrote:
>On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 02:05 PM, Jay F Kominek wrote:
> > 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.

Jay and Robin took the proper approach. When I turned the web page over to 
him as webmaster , I gave him broad editorial discretion to modify the 
site. He has done so (and though he delegated it to Jay, he has taken the 
responsibility). Robin's done the job to my extreme satisfaction, and for 
that matter, to the extreme satisfaction of the members, per the motion 
passed at the last annual meeting:

> * MOVED: To Commend Robin Powell for exceptional efforts in converting 
> the LLG site, and for exceeding expectations on presentation to public - PASSED
I find it hard in the face of such commendation, to criticize either Jay or 
Robin for the work that they did.

We likewise have had no complaints from TLI, and in fact have had increased 
cooperation with them since the site was turned over to Robin, and now 
Robin and Bob McIvor plan to work out a mutually agreeable set of 
references to each language on their respective home pages. I see no 
problem, and every reason to be satisfied.

>I realize that perhaps
>you (and others) don't really care about the history of Loglan

But I do care.

>and believe that my concerns about this issue are foolish.

No, I believe that your words are counterproductive, in that, having gone 
beyond stating your concern, you are pushing the issue to the point where 
any of us that wish to respect the historical connection to Loglan will be 
perceived by others as being extremists, and the non-productive focus on 
the matter is unhelpful in encouraging greater cooperation between TLI and LLG.

>I certainly agree that that Loglan is dead,

It isn't dead. TLI Loglan is moribund. The Loglan project is alive and well.

>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.

It appears that you have not given up on TLI Loglan.

lojbab

-- 
lojbab [email-masked]
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