From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Dec 12 09:08:36 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 12 Dec 2002 17:08:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 44314 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2002 17:08:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Dec 2002 17:08:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Dec 2002 17:08:34 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18MWp7-0006Qw-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:08:33 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18MWp4-0006Qd-00; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:08:30 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:08:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18MWoz-0006QU-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:08:25 -0800 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gBCHFBG9067088 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:15:11 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gBCHFBXX067087 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:15:11 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:15:11 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: bridling hostility (was: RE: Re: the ethics of the HTML content meta tag Message-ID: <20021212171511.GB66661@allusion.net> References: <1039702042024396@lycos-europe.com> <3DF8A82A.5060907@bilkent.edu.tr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cmJC7u66zC7hs+87" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DF8A82A.5060907@bilkent.edu.tr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 3488 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --cmJC7u66zC7hs+87 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 05:15:54PM +0200, Robin Turner wrote: > And Rosta wrote: > >Jordan: > > >I don't think *anyone* has supported your "'Loglan' is the english > > >word for 'lojban'" crap (excepting you). > > > > > >Anyway; if you really want to abuse meta tags so badly, how about > > >you put up your own lojban site? No one is stopping you... > > > >Steven is advocating what he thinks is best for Lojban, and best for=20 > >official > >LLG policy, not what he thinks is best for him. He is clearly not speaki= ng > >out of a yen to abuse meta tags. The list would be a happier place if yo= u > >respected that his intentions are honourable, and replied simply that > >"your idea has been considered inappropriate for the following reasons..= . > >and this is why it hasn't won support". I think he *is* speaking out of a yen to abuse meta tags (though certainly he wouldn't consider it abuse). He's not satisfied with them either---he wants the tag changed to try to fool search engines. Furthermore I doubt that he is actually speaking out of what he thinks is "best for lojban"---the whole "LLG Loglan" thing is essentially trolling, designed to piss people off and nothing else. It's quite incredible really. Anyway, I was just pointing out that *nobody* supports his position (or if they do they haven't said it), and that lojban.org does not have a monopoly on Lojban web pages. > >I have a sense that the atmosphere of the list is a little less collegia= l > >than it used to be, and that insults and adhominems are becoming more > >common. > > >=20 > It was pretty vituperous about six years ago, if I remember rightly.=20 > There were just fewer people around to vituperate, and the vituperations= =20 > tended to be about more obscure issues. >=20 > I agree that a little more politeness is in order. Perhaps we could=20 > agree that all insulting messages should be posted in Lojban. If=20 > nothing else it would be more amusing: .u'i I don't feel I was being insulting in this particlar message, though. Or rather, I don't feel it was out of proportion to the tone of this thread. > le do mamta cu nalrebysmacu .ije le do patfu se steci le panci pei jbari= =20 > .i mi carna gi'e sputu fo do >=20 > (sorry, I'm not up to coining a lujvo/fu'ivla for "elderberry" at the=20 > moment, nor to rendering "in your general direction") --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --cmJC7u66zC7hs+87 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9+MQfDrrilS51AZ8RAqhSAKCc+0XTNIjOz9CnlC4TOCVfcsddvACfSIfd RjkPKJT8VX0vw7SvrGay3WI= =xlkG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --cmJC7u66zC7hs+87--