xorlo & mi nitcu lo mikce
> pc:
> > --- And Rosta <a.rosta@v21.me.uk> wrote:
> > > Solution (1) seems far less disruptive to
> xorlo
> > > and hence to the progress and consensus
> that
> > > the
> > > BPFK appears to have achieved.
> >
> > Since I think that xorlo — even as it was
> > presented officially, before the expanding
> > explications — is a disaster, preserving it
> is
> > hardly a considertation.
>
> I had the impression (from the official xorlo
> page) that xorlo had been discussed and then
> voted
> on by the BPFK with unanimous approval from
> those
> voting. (--No small achievement if set against
> the state of lojbanology when I tuned out!)
Even if you are correct (and there is some reason
to be doubtful about the discussion part of that)
that hardly makes it a Good Idea. Consider the
recent US election after all.