From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Apr 03 09:27:12 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_5); 3 Apr 2003 17:27:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 23442 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2003 17:27:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Apr 2003 17:27:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Apr 2003 17:27:09 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 1918UX-0003Qe-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 03 Apr 2003 09:27:09 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1918UD-0003QJ-00; Thu, 03 Apr 2003 09:26:49 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 03 Apr 2003 09:26:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 1918U5-0003QA-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2003 09:26:41 -0800 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:26:41 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] [duchamp@stl.quik.com: use of "agree/disagree" referring to non-existant objects] Message-ID: <20030403172640.GO15380@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-archive-position: 4715 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out I have no idea if this is spam, but I thought someone with a greater clue than I about logic issues might enjoy responding anyways. Just don't come crying to me if you respond to this and then get a bunch of spam. -Robin ----- Forwarded message from Janell Tessaro ----- Subject: use of "agree/disagree" referring to non-existant objects From: Janell Tessaro To: webmaster@lojban.org Envelope-to: webmaster@lojban.org Delivery-date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 21:47:15 -0800 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.4 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_FONT_COLOR_BLUE,HTML_FONT_COLOR_RED, RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) This is a long shot. I am hoping that you will take the time to settle an argument in our office about a survey on bicycles: There are 5 possible responses to a series of statements about the public use of bicycles: strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree don't know All respondents, whether or not they have indicated earlier in the survey that they do not own a bicycle, are required to select one of the above responses in reaction to the statement: "I would like to be able to take my bicycle onto more public busses." The automatic response to date from all respondents who do not own a bike has been: "not applicable" The author of the survey says that "disagree" should be the obvious response since any individual that does not have a bicycle could not benefit from any additional accommodations on busses for bikes. I say that the "disagree"response (+ all other choices currently available) presumes ownership of a bicycle which does not exist, and therefore there needs to be a N/A choice. Who is right? Thanks in advance. Tatiana Duchamp ----- End forwarded message ----- -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u crepu le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi