I ignore 99.5% of what is on this list as it is way over my head. I use the delete key all the time and I don't seem to be worse for having done so. I agree with the earlier statement that tolerance is the order of the day. It is my belief that in the exchange of ideas the less that people "own" an idea and the more that they "contribute" an idea, the more cordial will be the flow of discussion and conversation. Just sayin'

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Bleackley" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 10:02:59 AM
Subject: Re: Expulsion of loglangs from CONLANG-L

You'll find a definition on page 19 of "The Art of Language Invention".

Pete Bleackley
The Fantastical Devices of Pete The Mad Scientist -
Emily Semantic Recommendation -

-----Original Message-----
From: Galen Buttitta <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 4:51 pm
Subject: Re: Expulsion of loglangs from CONLANG-L

Define "real language".

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:28 AM, David McCann <[log in to unmask]>

> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 04:15:21 +0530
> Sid <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > The loglang discussions are annoying. It's a bunch of opinions and
> > arguments about linguistic superiority and nitpicks.
> Hear, hear!
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:31:18 -0700
> William Wright <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > why don't we just kick everyone off who annoys us, you and I? I've
> > always hated romalngs; can we expel them too?
> > Sorry, that was rude, not to mention probably ill-executed.
> Well, yes, it was.
> But the real point is not that the loglang discussions have been boring
> and irritating, but that they are not relevant to any conglanger who
> doesn't work on them. A possibly relevant point is that loglangs do not
> exist in the wild (before you say that no conlangs do, consider things
> like Chinook jargon) and so are not really languages.
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:10:59 +0100
> R A Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > I see a perfectly good working solution.  It's called being
> > tolerant of other people's interests and also, as I do (and
> > others it seems), using the DELETE button for posts that
> > don't interest us personally.
> Then why, at the time of the Great Sundering, were those then on the
> list not similarly tolerant?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Personally, I'm not calling for anyone or anything to be expelled. I
> can and do delete. But when just a couple of people have some
> overriding interest that clearly not shared by others, might they not
> consider a private discussion? And when some-one like Sid protests,
> might others be a little less smug in parading their toleration?