Re: Lojban discussions

[Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@MATH.ACAD.BG>]

Logical Language Group wrote:
> Indeed, I think it is safe to say that any debate on semantics of Lojban that
> is intedned to be decisive, would have to involve at minimum Cowan, myself,
> Nora, Nick Nicholas, Colin Fine, Ivan Derzhanski, pc, as well as And and Jorge
> (and there are others who might want to weigh in as well).  Of these, 2
> are not on the list at all, and at least 3 have given indication that they
> read little of the list traffic even though they are ninimnally subscribed.

I'm in the second group here (and have been there for a long time now).
I fondly remember the time when I was one of the most active Lojbanists,
and it's with deep regret that I delete so many unread articles every day
that look as though they must be of no little interest to a semanticist,
but my spare time situation is such that the higher the volume and vigour
of a discussion are, the less likely I am to have any hope of keeping up
with it.  It's just too bad that that means my having to stay away from
discussing the most important questions.

--Ivan