From ragnarok@pobox.com Fri Jul 20 11:39:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 20 Jul 2001 18:39:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 18613 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2001 18:38:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Jul 2001 18:38:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.246) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Jul 2001 18:38:46 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.34] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AAC228490034; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 14:38:58 -0400 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] how can i help lojban? what can $ do? Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 14:38:47 -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) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" >I would like to mention that within the last few days I ran an ad on >Google for Lojban. (I spent about $4 total on it, so it was worth it >for an experiment.) The ad read something like: >Lojban >The Logical Language >For unambiguous communication I just reread this, and realize that this is an example of the kind of claim to total unambiguity I refer to. To quote Lojbab's answer to my complaint, "I believe we explicitly say that Lojban is NOT semantically unambiguous." Um, how's that again? Unambiguous communication that's not unambiguous? --la kreig.daniyl 'There is no news in the truth and no truth in the news.' xy.sy. gubmau ckiku cmesanji: 0x5C3A1E74