From ragnarok@pobox.com Mon Mar 03 17:36:51 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 4 Mar 2003 01:36:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 41562 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 01:36:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Mar 2003 01:36:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 01:36:50 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18q1MQ-00042k-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 17:36:50 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18q1ML-00042R-00; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 17:36:45 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 03 Mar 2003 17:36:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18q1ME-00041m-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 17:36:38 -0800 Received: from craig [209.42.200.67] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-7.13) id A307A5910150; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 20:36:07 -0500 To: Subject: [lojban] Re: The Any thread Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:36:30 -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) In-Reply-To: <20030304001831.GA21058@allusion.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com [209.42.200.67] X-archive-position: 4322 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 >>> So let's avoid the unbacked >> assertions. Now, I know you're about to make an argumentum ad populum here >> (or at least most people would) and claim that there are only two of us. To >Straw man. No. A straw man involves shooting down a ridiculous argument which is attributed to your critics. In this case, the argumentum ad populum would have been reasonable, and it would have been very unsurprising if it had been made. It would simply have been worng, so I answered it in advance. Not quite a straw man, but close. >> Fourth, traditional Lojban == Baseline. This includes CLL, but is by no >> means limited to it. >Of course, what I had intended was that anything in CLL is obviously >standard or "traditional" lojban. So this point is off topic. Once you have cured yourself of the notion that CLL and Baseline are equivalent, you will be better prepared for the time when the BPFK almost inevitably makes some of the woldy obsolete.