From xod@thestonecutters.net Tue Feb 25 16:08:29 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 26 Feb 2003 00:08:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 39650 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 00:08:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Feb 2003 00:08:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 00:08:28 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18np7c-0003iC-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:08:28 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18np7X-0003ht-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:08:23 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:08:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18np7P-0003hQ-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:08:15 -0800 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1Q08FH45559 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:08:15 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:08:15 -0500 (EST) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Nick will be with you shortly In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030225190515.R8505-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 4148 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Invent Yourself Reply-To: xod@thestonecutters.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=110189215 X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Nick Nicholas wrote: > No problem, Craig. Now, it *is* true that I will be pushing a > solution to {loi}, in a few months, based on what has been going on > in jboske; and there will be other things coming out of jboske from > time to time. But that does not mean the rest of BPFK has to accept > it; jboske is a faction (I guess) and a forum, but it won't be a > cabal, both because its discussions are public, and because it's > really only 3 or 4 people. jboske has a mission (get its shit > together for the BPFK), but no mandate: it is the BPFK which has that > mandate. Now, I'll be royally pissed off if the BPFK says my solution > is too baroque to be acceptable (or that there is no problem with > {loi} to be solved), but I'll just have to lump it. jboske has been totally dead for about 2 months now -- or they've kicked me off the list. jboske is where these issues get treated seriously. Too seriously, perhaps. The tricky question of the BF is: can we deal with these issues less loquaciously than jboske does, and yet still do them justice? -- Seventy-two city councils, including Philadelphia, Austin, Chicago, Baltimore and Cleveland have passed anti-war resolutions.