From ragnarok@pobox.com Wed Feb 26 16:00:34 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 27 Feb 2003 00:00:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 66143 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2003 00:00:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Feb 2003 00:00:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Feb 2003 00:00:34 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18oBTW-0004ai-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:00:34 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oBT9-0004aO-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:00:11 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:00:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oBSx-0004a5-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:59:59 -0800 Received: from craig [209.42.200.67] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-7.13) id A4DF20600150; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:59:27 -0500 To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Nick will be with you shortly Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:59:41 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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: <20030226233657.GE17377@digitalkingdom.org> Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com [209.42.200.67] X-archive-position: 4181 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ragnarok@pobox.com Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "Craig" Reply-To: ragnarok@pobox.com 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; >Even if the change is backwards compatible and other people see a >problem? If enough people see a problem, that will convince me that there is one and that my inability to see it reflects my lojban skill rather than the proposer's. However, if no reason is ever given why an idea is a Solution to a Problem (as opposed to a Random Act of Tinkering), I will treat it as being in the RTA group rather than the SP group. I wouldn't insist on the explanation of the problem being in the proposal (although I think it would be a Good Thing Deserving of Kudos if it were); I would merely insist that the explanation of the problem not be nonexistant. Discussion on the list is sufficient, but future lojbanists would want to see our reasoning - and it should be readily accessible.