From phma@webjockey.net Fri Jan 24 20:34:55 2003
Return-Path: <phma@ixazon.dynip.com>
X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 25 Jan 2003 04:34:54 -0000
Received: (qmail 88809 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2003 04:34:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
  by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Jan 2003 04:34:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO blackcat.ixazon.lan) (208.150.110.21)
  by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jan 2003 04:34:54 -0000
Received: by blackcat.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 1001)
  id 11FADA5AF; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 04:34:52 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: dis
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com (Lojban List)
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: valfendi algorithm
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 23:34:52 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
References: <200301250442.XAA26915@mail2.reutershealth.com>
In-Reply-To: <200301250442.XAA26915@mail2.reutershealth.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200301242334.52786.phma@webjockey.net>
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@webjockey.net>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92712300

On Friday 24 January 2003 23:29, John Cowan wrote:
> Robert LeChevalier scripsit:
> > (In addition "ala'um" is not an "option"; there should be no options in
> > an official algorithm. It is either valid or invalid according to the
> > rules.)
>
> IIRC the validity of this word was discussed on jboske some time ago.

I'm not on jboske (maybe I should be, but when I looked at it I found the 
logician's jargon incomprehensible). Where is the discussion archived, and 
what was the conclusion?

phma