From ragnarok@pobox.com Wed Feb 26 12:56:28 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 26 Feb 2003 20:56:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 67919 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 20:56:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Feb 2003 20:56:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 20:56:28 -0000 Received: from craig [209.42.200.67] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-7.13) id A9F834001DA; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:56:24 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Nick will be with you shortly Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:56:39 -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 >IIRC, nobody, except possibly Nick, has an individual power of veto. My recollection had been that every BPFK member had a veto. >a talent for it), & if it gives rise to more questions & discussion then that >will end up as a recapitulation of debates that already happened on >Jboske. I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, but if it is allowed to, then If a thing has already been discussed on jboske, then it ought to be sufficient for someone to post a summary of that. >we must accept that BF is a longhaul operation, rather than something >that should have been over by May. Oh, I'm sure. But it would be better to ONLY patch genuine problems with the language, but patch them slowly, than to fix everything anyone dislikes.