From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Wed Jun 13 17:07:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 14 Jun 2001 00:07:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 14037 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2001 00:04:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Jun 2001 00:04:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.169.75.101) by mta2 with SMTP; 14 Jun 2001 00:04:49 -0000 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15AKcy-0004uq-00 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:04:48 -0700 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:04:48 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals Message-ID: <20010613170448.U14438@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i From: Robin Lee Powell On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 07:57:34PM -0400, Craig wrote: > I'm sorry, I misquoted the date on this. We haven't been having this stupid > argument for as long as I thought. But I still don't get what's wrong with > this version (Which is actually just a clarification of the book) and has > not been shown to be problematic. It works, here's an explanation of > attitudinals that I think if we take the time to reread it HAS NO PROBLEMS > WITH IT. So WHY THE **** ARE WE STILL ARGUING ABOUT IT? Because it's incredibly ambiguous. It _is_ comprehensible to you that others could understand your POV and still not agree, right? -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/