From pycyn@aol.com Tue Jun 05 15:26:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 5 Jun 2001 22:26:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 71890 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2001 22:25:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Jun 2001 22:25:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Jun 2001 22:25:22 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.fc.760ab9d (3931) for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 18:25:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 18:25:18 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Rabbity Sand-Laugher To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_fc.760ab9d.284eb64e_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_fc.760ab9d.284eb64e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 6/5/2001 4:24:38 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes: > a whole. In future I will redirect my responses to you back to the > list.> >=20 Score another for aol: its curious way of dealing with replies. I suppose= =20 there is a way to reset this, but it usually sends replies to things receiv= ed=20 from the list to the list, then occasionally -- as this -- sends them to th= e=20 original sender. So far it has not (that I can remember) sent a private=20 communication to the list. 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.=A0 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= =20 Book? I am just reading things by the book: "Attitudinals make no claim: th= ey=20 are expressions of attitude, not of facts or alleged facts. As a result,=20 attitudinals themselves have no truth value, nor do they directly affect th= e=20 truth value of a bridi they modify." (13.2 p. 298) So, what is asserted in= a=20 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=20 Book says, or if what the Book says is inconsistent with other points in=20 itself or the general program, I am perfectly happy to argue. But so far=20 this is not the case here. Usage decides undecided cases; some things are decided -- in this case to=20 make a clear distinction between claims that arouse our emotions and claims= =20 about our aroused emotions. --part1_fc.760ab9d.284eb64e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 6/5/2001 4:24:38 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org 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 th= e
list.>

Score another for aol: its curious way of dealing with replies. I= suppose=20
there is a way to reset this, but it usually sends replies to things re= ceived=20
from the list to the list, then occasionally -- as this -- sends them t= o the=20
original sender. So far it has not (that I can remember) sent a p= rivate=20
communication to the list.

<On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 02:27:21PM -0400, Pycyn@aol.com wrote:
> Relevantly to the matter under discussion, xod has a standing clai= m --
> 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 qui= te
> high up, yet he regularly makes these kinds of simple errors, ofte= n
> 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.=A0 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 o= ut in the=20
Book? I am just reading things by the book: "Attitudinals make no claim= : they=20
are expressions of attitude, not of facts or alleged facts. As a = result,=20
attitudinals themselves have no truth value, nor do they directly affec= t the=20
truth value of a bridi they modify." (13.2 p. 298) So, what is as= serted in a=20
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 t= he=20
Book says, or if what the Book says is inconsistent with other points i= n=20
itself or the general program, I am perfectly happy to argue. But= so far=20
this is not the case here.
Usage decides undecided cases; some things are decided -- in this case = to=20
make a clear distinction between claims that arouse our emotions and cl= aims=20
about our aroused emotions. --part1_fc.760ab9d.284eb64e_boundary--