From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Feb 26 15:47:20 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 23:47:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 80748 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 23:47:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Feb 2003 23:47:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 23:47:20 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18oBGh-0004QL-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:47:19 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oBGc-0004Pz-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:47:14 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:47:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oBGV-0004Pq-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:47:08 -0800 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1QNrlZB022606 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:53:47 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h1QNrldX022605 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:53:47 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:53:47 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Nick will be with you shortly Message-ID: <20030226235347.GB22288@allusion.net> References: <20030226233657.GE17377@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7ZAtKRhVyVSsbBD2" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030226233657.GE17377@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 4176 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --7ZAtKRhVyVSsbBD2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 03:36:57PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:49:30PM -0500, Craig wrote: > > >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. > >=20 > > 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; >=20 > Even if the change is backwards compatible and other people see a > problem? The changes people want to loi aren't backward compatible. They range from complete gadri overhauls, to redefining the meaning of "lo". --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --7ZAtKRhVyVSsbBD2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+XVOLDrrilS51AZ8RAhT+AKCVzqDuWR+KCzbpeitbsvTV3VIsOACfSAKl Ngb4/xi8oBDILVp1rkU8ESc= =iUsz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7ZAtKRhVyVSsbBD2--