From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Jul 27 08:19:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 27 Jul 2001 15:19:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 23269 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2001 15:18:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Jul 2001 15:18:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-1.cais.net) (205.252.14.71) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Jul 2001 15:18:23 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (33.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.33]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f6RFILZ07673 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 11:18:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010727110311.00c636c0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 11:16:55 -0400 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] On a number of parts of threads and single threads disguised as several In-Reply-To: References: <20010720214045.C20749@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 03:37 PM 07/27/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote: >The reason why Lojban List remains a single list (not counting Jbosnu), >rather than lojban list + lojban-tech, is that Lojbab is opposed to >splitting the list. His preferences appear to be (1) technical discussion >doesn't happen, (2) it happens on Lojban list, (3) it happens on Lojban-tech >list. (1) is unreasonable, so it is down to Lojbab that we have (2) rather >than (3). Lojbab is not opposed to technical discussion. I wish it were minimized, because it detracts from people actually using the language (since my last posting on this topic, Cowan has expressed his opinion that the appropriate way to fill in the gaps of the refgrammar is a chrestomathy of approved usages; we will no doubt be discussing this at LogFest). There is at times a lot of energy thrown into technical discussion that goes nowhere, whereas Jorge has certainly found that he has more effect on language usage by using the language to the point that people follow his usage patterns, than he will ever have in technical discussion. I oppose a tech list primarily because I do not want the loss of critical mass on the main list, especially if it means that all of the experienced people working the technical list no longer pay attention to the regular list. I would welcome it if there was a foolproof way of getting a mailing list to sort itself into technical and beginner posts and other categories so that people could filter what they don't want easily, but that is not likely at least while we are using a commercial mail host. (If we had our own mailing list host, we could in theory use software at the host to standardize subject lines to include filterable codes.) lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org