Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Rabbity Sand-Laugher

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 18:25:18 EDT

In a message dated 6/5/2001 4:24:38 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> <It would be best, IMO, if you sent these sorts of things to the list as
> a whole. In future I will redirect my responses to you back to the
> list.>
> 

Score another for aol: its curious way of dealing with replies. I suppose 
there is a way to reset this, but it usually sends replies to things received 
from the list to the list, then occasionally -- as this -- sends them to the 
original sender. So far it has not (that I can remember) sent a private 
communication to the list.

<On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 02:27:21PM -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> Relevantly to the matter under discussion, xod has a standing claim --
> by deeds, he may be too modest to assert it -- to be in an upper
> echelon of Lojbanists, below the top four or five perhaps, but quite
> high up, yet he regularly makes these kinds of simple errors, often
> falls into incredibly complex construction for simple situations, and
> not infrequently insists that he -- not the Book or someone above him
> in the hierarchy -- is right.

Umm, but you are insisting _exactly_ the same thing right now.  And
rather more arrogantly than he has ever done, that I've seen.

What happened to usage carrying the day?>
Excuse me? Where have I insisted that I am right except as laid out in the 
Book? I am just reading things by the book: "Attitudinals make no claim: they 
are expressions of attitude, not of facts or alleged facts. As a result, 
attitudinals themselves have no truth value, nor do they directly affect the 
truth value of a bridi they modify." (13.2 p. 298) So, what is asserted ina 
sentence is not affected by the speaker's response to it.
Now, if someone wants to argue that that ain't so, regardless of what the 
Book says, or if what the Book says is inconsistent with other points in 
itself or the general program, I am perfectly happy to argue. But so far 
this is not the case here.
Usage decides undecided cases; some things are decided -- in this case to 
make a clear distinction between claims that arouse our emotions and claims 
about our aroused emotions.