Subject: Re: [lojban] Get Much Ca$h !

From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 02:09:05 -0400

Pierre Abbat writes:
>On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Taral wrote:
>>> As to the missing attitudinal, I don't have the hang of attitudinals yet and
>>> was too busy looking up other words.
>>
>>Actually, "me" is not an attitudinal. It changes sumti into simple
>>selbri: x1 is one of the referents of "[sumti]". It turns out, however,
>>that I was wrong about its use there. :)
>
>Sorry for the confusion. I was answering Robin's message.

<blink> I no longer have a copy of my mail (dammit), but I don't
remember suggesting that you were missing an attitudinal. I _do_
remember bitching, in general, that there existed no attitudinal for
annoyance.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest.
Despite not getting very emotional about it, the fact that quantum
entanglement doesn't allow transmission of information is probably the
most profound dissapointment I've ever experienced. -- RLPowell