From ragnarok@pobox.com Wed Jun 13 16:39:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 13 Jun 2001 23:39:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 72660 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 23:39:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Jun 2001 23:39:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.246) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2001 23:39:51 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.34] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A9D7945B0078; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 19:40:07 -0400 Reply-To: To: Subject: If it ain't broke, don't fix it (was an approach to attitudinals) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 19:39:51 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Givent that there wasn't any misunderstood comment to start this thread to my knowledge, how's this proposal sound? 1. We will assume that attitudinals have the meaning suggested by actual usage. 2. We will use attitudinals so that people understand what we are saying. 3. We will shut the hell up about our fixes to attitudinal problems until there is a problem to post about. 4. We will agree that despite its selma'o, calling xu an attitudinal confuses things. --la kreig.daniyl 'segu temci fa le bavli gi mi'o ba renvi lo purci .i ga la fonxa cu janbe gi du mi' -la djimis.BYFet xy.sy. gubmau ckiku cmesanji: 0x5C3A1E74