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

From: Steven Belknap <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 23:29:02 -0600

On Thursday, December 12, 2002, at 04:22 PM, Theodore Reed wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:18:15 -0600
> Steven Belknap <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> 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. Such hostility seems as unwise as it is unkind.
>
> I have noticed no hostility to logli in this community. There is a
> general "if you don't speak lojban, don't try telling us that we're
> doing something wrong" attitude, which applies to logli and non-logli
> alike, which may be related to what you're talking about.

There is sometimes a world of difference between implication and 
inference. I assume you are aware that some of the leaders of 
lojbanistan are not at all fluent in LLG Loglan. Should their input be 
ignored? I think not. The unique experience of some TLI Loglan 
speakers, professional logicians, linguists, and others not fluent in 
LLG Loglan may be relevant and helpful. Given the fact that most 
conlangs fail, it is best to cast ones net widely. If a person brings 
something valuable to the conversation, he should be given a hearing. 
Minority opinions should be respected. I agree that the nature of LLG 
Loglan will be determined largely by those who are most fluent in the 
language. Another reason for me to stop posting and get back to my 
gismu drills. I'm satisfied that my point has been made. I will now 
return to my previous quiescent state of list lurker.

-Steven