[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
> ....just fundamentalism. There are no revisionsists, just revisionism Quite so. Talk about "fundamentalists" can mean "anyone who is a proponent of fundamentalism", not "Lojbab and Jordan". > Factions are cool; but factions are fluid. I'm allowed to be fundie in > most things, and revisionist in a couple. I'm also allowed to lose at > the hands at other, more consistent fundies, and curse them all the way > down. Much though I'm fuming at Jordan right now, we *need* Jordan, > because we need fundies. And I fully admit that on this one issue, I am > being revisionist, not fundie. I'm trying to be revisionist lite, but > yes, I am being revisionist > > Still willing to compromise, though. For example: Give me a collective > lu'oi, and you can keep your lojbanmass loi. That kind of thing I wonder about that: how happy would people be if they never used "loi broda" and always used "lu'oi ro broda" instead. Would they not come to feel frustration? Or is that a Lojban Mark II issue? That is, the BF takes a basically fundamentalist line as far as possible, adding but not changing what already exists, and then after testing it through usage the community decides whether to undertake more drastic revisions? > Don't expect of me consistency, And. It is to the good of Lojban that > there be fundamentalism. Not that I or anyone else hold a consistently > fundie viewpoint on everything. These are guidelines, and this is > politics, and we have to wheeler-deal I know this, but you can't lambast me for breaching fundamentalist principles if you are prepared to breach them yourself, and I happen to strike a different balance between fundamentalism and revisionism that the one you strike. > They don't call me weasel for nothing. :-) > > I wanted to flame Bob's response to you, mainly because I flame > everything Bob says by reflex :-) , and I don't like him saying "no > factionalism", that's just silly. But thinking of it, I can't really > flame him. Factions are fine, because there are conflicting aims for > the language, which need to be acknowledged, and I reject any attempt > to squelch that. But fluid membership in factions, and the ability to > compromise, they're better. There is no fundamentalism per se either. > Just votes to keep or change, on particular issues. (Another of Bob's > insights.) I agree with this. I tried to say something similar in my reply to Lojbab. > I can't flame him, but I do believe my sometime ally and sometime > adversary in Preston to be capable of compromise, even if not fluidity. > So lay off him. :-) I am indeed capable of compromise. And I can also live with being outvoted: I have had getting on for a dozen years of practice in being outvoted in Lojban matters! I'm not expecting this to change! --And.