From ragnarok@pobox.com Tue Feb 25 18:49:25 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 26 Feb 2003 02:49:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 68913 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 02:49:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Feb 2003 02:49:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 02:49:24 -0000 Received: from craig [209.42.200.67] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-7.13) id AB322C30196; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:49:22 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Nick will be with you shortly Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:49:30 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com [209.42.200.67] From: "Craig" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >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. I don't know what the problem with {loi} is, and when the BPFK appears and we all get a veto I will veto any change to {loi} that doesn't demonstrate that there is one. In fact, I plan to veto any change to the language that doesn't solve a problem which is either obvious or explained in the proposal; the BPFK should not act lightly. But, if the jposkepre have been able to put much effort into {loi}, then I'm sure there is a problem and that their proposal will explain it to us.