From pycyn@aol.com Thu Jun 07 16:32:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 7 Jun 2001 23:32:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 92286 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2001 23:32:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Jun 2001 23:32:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d02.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.34) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Jun 2001 23:32:58 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.69.166a5a35 (17378) for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 19:32:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <69.166a5a35.28516924@aol.com> Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 19:32:52 EDT Subject: re: rabbity sand-laugher To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_69.166a5a35.28516924_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_69.166a5a35.28516924_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable some missent items In a message dated 6/6/2001 1:19:04 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes: > Ummm, pycyn, you know you're responding to yourself there, right? >=20 Actually, no -- xod's intervening comment, that this was the disruption of= =20 vitality, seems to have dropped out at some point. In a message dated 6/6/2001 1:32:35 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes: > He stated what he believed to be your opinion. =A0The truth value has onl= y > to do whith whether the statement is true from some point of view, since > it's an opinion statement, IIRC. =A0He made it clear, IMO, tho the point > of view in question was not his own. =A0So the truth of the bridi depends > on the opinion of whomever he was empathizing with. >=20 An interesting -- and, it now appears, permissible -- point of view. =A0Wel= l,=20 almost. =A0If its truth depends upon my point of view and so on, then he ca= n't=20 attack the claim, as the book says, since it is selfly true. =A0On the othe= r=20 hand, if the evidential function as intended (in Native American languages= =20 and Laadan) then he himself has asserted it and on weak evidence indeed (hi= s=20 idea of someone else's opinion). =A0The only way to make tyhe sentence=20 pragmatically sound is to look at one interpretation for one part -- the=20 statement is made and I object to it -- and another interpretation for the= =20 other part -- someone else made the statement so don't blame me. =A0This is= =20 equivocation at best, and stupidity at worst. Or the other way round -- I=20 never am clear whether it is worse to call someone an idiot or a cheat.=20 =A0Actually, I don't think either applies -- to xod. =A0The book turns out = to be=20 so screwed up on this issue -- which I remember as being pretty well cleare= d=20 up several times over the past years and certainly is in the logical=20 literature -- that he can't really be blamed for not getting it right. =A0T= he=20 present set-up doesn't allow anyone to get it right, for each choice made i= s=20 wrong on some place in the chapter. =A0As it says somewhere in there, none = of=20 this can be used to decide correct use. =A0One does not expect that low-tai= l=20 excuse to come out in the textbook! Discussion coming on my webpage, but I have to clean the basement, too. In a message dated 6/6/2001 4:28:02 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes: > You appear to be ipmlying that people are not corrected on the list, > that everyone but you simply lavishes praise indiscriminately. >=20 > This leads me to wonder what list you've been reading. >=20 Sorry, I did not know the study was done on this list -- which has no=20 children on it, as far as I know. =A0I did not say anything about this list= --=20 is this where xod thinks the inexpert and undeveloped teaching is done.=20 =A0Shame on him! Actually, this is list has been pretty good up til now -- people get praise= d=20 probably less often than they ought and they get nit-picked too much for th= e=20 seriousnes of their offenses. =A0But under the new policy that everybody=20 (Lojbab, xod, Robin CA?) is advocating -- the fairly standard student=20 assumption in colleges these days and one administrators tend to support --= =20 everybody will always get at least a passing grade, lest they leave the clu= b=20 (oh, horror!) and probably get their little egos massaged a bit on the side= ,=20 just in case. =A0Meanwhile, they will not learn the langauge nor even how t= o do=20 a decent job of figuring out how to learn the langauge. =A0[This is strictl= y a=20 strawman, of course, but having been accused of doing something (unspecifie= d)=20 bad for lojbanders and Lojban, something that all are to be warned against,= I=20 feel entitled to a little rhetorical exageration too] Apparently I can't disagree with you about this, since you probably really = do=20 think that way. =A0And, if your point is that that is a dumb word to use fo= r a=20 narrowcasting message service, I even think that way myself. =A0If you are= =20 objecting to the word as the Lojban word for "list", then I think otherwise= =20 and, should you ever assert that claim, I would dispute you on it. --part1_69.166a5a35.28516924_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable some missent items

In a message dated 6/6/2001 1:19:04 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes:



Ummm, pycyn, you know you= 're responding to yourself there, right?


Actually, no -- xod's intervening comment, that this was the disruption= of=20
vitality, seems to have dropped out at some point.

In a message dated 6/6/2001 1:32:35 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes:



He stated what he believe= d to be your opinion. =A0The truth value has only
to do whith whether the statement is true from some point of view, sinc= e
it's an opinion statement, IIRC. =A0He made it clear, IMO, tho the poin= t
of view in question was not his own. =A0So the truth of the bridi depen= ds
on the opinion of whomever he was empathizing with.




An interesting -- and, it now appears, permissible -- point of view. = =A0Well,=20
almost. =A0If its truth depends upon my point of view and so on, then h= e can't=20
attack the claim, as the book says, since it is selfly true. =A0On the = other=20
hand, if the evidential function as intended (in Native American langua= ges=20
and Laadan) then he himself has asserted it and on weak evidence indeed= (his=20
idea of someone else's opinion). =A0The only way to make tyhe sentence= =20
pragmatically sound is to look at one interpretation for one part -- th= e=20
statement is made and I object to it -- and another interpretation for = the=20
other part -- someone else made the statement so don't blame me. =A0Thi= s is=20
equivocation at best, and stupidity at worst. Or the other way round --= I=20
never am clear whether it is worse to call someone an idiot or a cheat.= =20
=A0Actually, I don't think either applies -- to xod. =A0The book turns = out to be=20
so screwed up on this issue -- which I remember as being pretty well cl= eared=20
up several times over the past years and certainly is in the logical=20
literature -- that he can't really be blamed for not getting it right. = =A0The=20
present set-up doesn't allow anyone to get it right, for each choice ma= de is=20
wrong on some place in the chapter. =A0As it says somewhere in there, n= one of=20
this can be used to decide correct use. =A0One does not expect that low= -tail=20
excuse to come out in the textbook!
Discussion coming on my webpage, but I have to clean the basement, too.

In a message dated 6/6/2001 4:28:02 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes:



You appear to be ipmlying= that people are not corrected on the list,
that everyone but you simply lavishes praise indiscriminately.

This leads me to wonder what list you've been reading.




Sorry, I did not know the study was done on this list -- which has no=20
children on it, as far as I know. =A0I did not say anything about this = list --=20
is this where xod thinks the inexpert and undeveloped teaching is done.= =20
=A0Shame on him!
Actually, this is list has been pretty good up til now -- people get pr= aised=20
probably less often than they ought and they get nit-picked too much fo= r the=20
seriousnes of their offenses. =A0But under the new policy that everybod= y=20
(Lojbab, xod, Robin CA?) is advocating -- the fairly standard student=20
assumption in colleges these days and one administrators tend to suppor= t --=20
everybody will always get at least a passing grade, lest they leave the= club=20
(oh, horror!) and probably get their little egos massaged a bit on the = side,=20
just in case. =A0Meanwhile, they will not learn the langauge nor even h= ow to do=20
a decent job of figuring out how to learn the langauge. =A0[This is str= ictly a=20
strawman, of course, but having been accused of doing something (unspec= ified)=20
bad for lojbanders and Lojban, something that all are to be warned agai= nst, I=20
feel entitled to a little rhetorical exageration too]

<to pe'i zo liste cu malglico toi>
Apparently I can't disagree with you about this, since you probably rea= lly do=20
think that way. =A0And, if your point is that that is a dumb word to us= e for a=20
narrowcasting message service, I even think that way myself. =A0If you = are=20
objecting to the word as the Lojban word for "list", then I think other= wise=20
and, should you ever assert that claim, I would dispute you on it.

--part1_69.166a5a35.28516924_boundary--