From sbelknap@UIC.EDU Thu Dec 12 13:28:28 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 21:28:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 77306 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2002 21:28:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Dec 2002 21:28:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Dec 2002 21:28:27 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Masd-00040A-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:28:27 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Masa-0003zo-00; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:28:24 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:28:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from larch.cc.uic.edu ([128.248.155.164]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18MasV-0003zc-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:28:19 -0800 Received: (qmail 12878 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2002 21:28:13 -0000 Received: from cis5044.uicomp.uic.edu (HELO uic.edu) (128.248.250.44) by larch.cc.uic.edu with SMTP; 12 Dec 2002 21:28:13 -0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:09:50 -0600 Subject: [lojban] Re: bridling hostility (was: RE: Re: the ethics of the HTML content meta tag Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548) Cc: lojban-list@lojban.org To: fracture@allusion.net In-Reply-To: <20021212171511.GB66661@allusion.net> Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) X-archive-position: 3505 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: sbelknap@uic.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Steven Belknap Reply-To: sbelknap@uic.edu X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810567 On Thursday, December 12, 2002, at 11:15 AM, Jordan DeLong wrote: > 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. Is it? The official name of the language is "lojban: a realization of Loglan." What is inappropriate about having the *official name* of the language in the title of the lojban.org web page? I would oppose "fooling" search engines. I would support having the lojban.org web presence reflect reality. -Steven