From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Fri Jul 20 21:41:23 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 21 Jul 2001 04:41:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 41359 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2001 04:40:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Jul 2001 04:40:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.169.75.101) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Jul 2001 04:40:47 -0000 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 3.31 #1 (Debian)) id 15NoZJ-00065M-00 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 21:40:45 -0700 Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 21:40:45 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] On a number of parts of threads and single threads disguised as several Message-ID: <20010720214045.C20749@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: <103.6254fd4.28879e8b@aol.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010720210849.00cdc810@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010720210849.00cdc810@127.0.0.1> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i From: Robin Lee Powell On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 09:17:31PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote: > At 04:58 PM 07/20/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote: > >(It follows, btw, that the 'tinkerers' on whom Lojbab heaps so much odium > >are vital to a project whose goal is to engineer something that realizes > >ideals of how to 'better' what nature provides.) > > Of course it is not clear that this was ever a primary goal of the Loglan > project. %^) > > My "odium" so-called exists only because in 2 decades of Loglan work I have > noticed that any serious discussion of changes has the twofold effect of > a) absorbing the attention of *all* the key people active in the language > effort, so that nothing else gets done (and the issues don't necessarily > get resolved), the language doesn't get used and book orders don't get > filled. Alice in Wonderland, no matter how good or bad the translation, is > worth far more than an equivalent amount of time invested in language > improvement debates; > b) turning off new people who don't generally understand the esoteric > nature of the discussion (and sometimes convincing them that the language > isn't really "done" and hence ready for someone to learn). I agree. The one (1) person in my lojban classes that tried reading the list left almost instantly for this reason. I have had about 6 students so far. -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/