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

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:12:39 -0500

At 11:18 AM 12/12/02 -0600, Steven Belknap wrote:
>On Thursday, December 12, 2002, at 04:32 AM, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> > 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.
>
>I'm curious as to why Jay deleted the TLI Loglan references.

I'm not. It's plausible to me that he was simply looking to shorten the 
text as much as possible.

>I have already acknowledged that Robin is doing an excellent job as web
>master. I am appreciative of his efforts. But you appear to be
>conflating a policy issue with a management issue.

No.

>The relationship between TLI and LLG should not have been delegated to the 
>webmaster and
>his assistants.

It hasn't been. The relationship between TLI and LLG is being dealt with 
by me (in consultation with the Board). However, since the design of our 
respective web sites has not been an issue between us, there was no policy 
issue to decide regarding the web site. If Robin were to put up something 
that violated our policy, I would ask him to change it; I doubt that this 
would be a problem.

> > 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.
>
>Judging by the posts to this list, some members of lojbanistan seem
>more than indifferent, they seem quite hostile towards logli and not
>just towards me.

I am reasonably sure that it is merely indifference.

>McIvor is just as much a member of "the Loglan project" as you are.

Bob McIvor and I are in full agreement, as far as I can tell, as to the 
extent to which each of us is involved in the Loglan Project, and in the 
affairs of each other.

>Speaking for myself, as somebody who completely avoided TLI politics but was
>avidly interested in TLI Loglan for 25+ years, I was quite offended by
>what I perceived as an inhospitable attitude on this list toward
>recovering logli such as myself.

I'm sorry you feel offended. But I think that the jbopre that seemed 
inhospitable to you were indeed merely indifferent. To them, you are a 
Lojbanist when you write in Lojban, and what you did 20 years ago is 
meaningless to them. They similarly bear what you would call "disrespect" 
for me and other old-time Lojbanists who are not actively involved in 
writing/speaking Lojban now. I understand where they are coming from, and 
accept it as part of the territory.

>This is a change from when I first
>started following the LLG Loglan listserv in 1995 or so. I believe
>others in my (perhaps only mythical) legion of 500 will be even more
>put off. I hope that your more accomodating stance towards TLI will
>have some influence on the newbies.

I deal with individuals who contact me/us as individuals. If someone 
mentions a familiarity with TLI Loglan or JCB, they get the utmost of 
respect. But I similarly understand that many of the newer Lojban people 
haven't any interest in history, have minimal interest in Sapir 
Whorf. They are doing what THEY want with the language, and don't much 
care what you want. But our commitment to making the language freely 
available to all, means that they have as much entitlement to Lojban as 
anyone else. Furthermore, since they dominate the active volunteers, they 
are the ones that are shaping the direction in which the community moves.

>Perhaps my protests will turn out to be counterproductive. I hope not.
>I certainly support fostering greater cooperation between TLI and LLG.
>I will take a "wait and see" attitude on this for now.

Thank you.

> >> I certainly agree that that Loglan is dead,
> >
> > It isn't dead. TLI Loglan is moribund. The Loglan project is alive
> > and well.
>
>I used "that that" Loglan to refer to TLI Loglan. Emphasis on the
>second "that." I agree that TLI Loglan is moribund, if not quite dead.

And because it is not dead, there are (inactive) TLI supporters who require 
different handling than your 500 that have been uninvolved in TLI in recent 
years. After JCB died, there were discussions on the Loglanists list as 
well as on Lojban List about the relationship between the two communities, 
and I think it is quite likely that your approach would be seen as 
offensive to them (the word "poaching" seems to be being used a lot, and I 
think it comes pretty close).

I would
>find it useful to have some kind of LLG Loglan-TLI Loglan glossary,
>particularly for cmavo.

Someone will have to work on it, and there are few who have the 
time/interest in doing the work.

>There are some interesting chapters on "little
>words" in JCB's Loglan books. It would be great if the full text of
>JCB's books were online somewhere and linked in some way to LLG cmavo.

L1 is online. There is very little more that we can do, since the text is 
copyright, and we're not about to play games with JCB's copyrights.

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