On 20/10/2015 16:28, David McCann wrote:
> 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.

That applies to any thread about a conlang.

> 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.

That IMHO is silly - Chinook jargon, for a start, was a
_pdgin_ which later became creolized in Grand Ronde, Oregon.

Artlangs do not exist in the wild any more than loglangs and
other engelangs.  As Lojban certainly has quite a following
and is used AFAIK in all the ways that one would expect a
language to be used, it seems to me rather perverse to say
it is not really a language!

> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:10:59 +0100 R A Brown 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?

Sigh - because things were *very different* then:

There was also, please note, *no* expulsion - it was a
_sundering_ made by the list administrator for the _benefit_
of both groups.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I'm not calling for anyone or anything to
> be expelled.


For a start, it is only the list administrator that can
block emails to the list or set people to NOPOST. No group
has ever been expelled from this list before.  To begin
doing so now would IMNSHO be the beginning of the break up
of the list.

Even after the 'Great Sundering' discussion of any auxlang
*as a conlang* has never been banned on this list - and many
people remained on both lists.  What has
been banned has been _auxlang politics_ and the advocacy of
one auxlang over others.

It might have been noticed that when it appeared that
someone was perhaps promoting Lojban, the list administrator
did intervene.

> 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?

How can you actually tell how many are interested?  Many
people who just lurk may be interested in a particular
thread.  In the past when a thread has appeared to be just
an exchange between two or three people, some one has
suggested that the conversation go private.  I do not recall
any such email appearing recently,

> And when some-one like Sid protests, might others be a
> little less smug in parading their toleration?

Sid did rather more than protest: he called for the
EXPULSION of a group from the list.  Expulsion is, in my
book, a lack of tolerance.  I resent being called smug
because I ask for tolerance.

On the 9th August I wrote:
... this list seems to have become a very
intolerant place.

Back to lurking mode now, and so as not to be tempted to
delurk again, I'll go NOPOST for a while and look back in a
month or so's time to see if toleration has returned to the

I meant, of course, NOMAIL, because only Alex can set
someone NOPOST.  But if we're going to have people calling
for expulsions, and those who call for toleration are called
"smug", then I must ask myself if I really want to remain on
this list at all.

"Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigenen Kosten denkt,
wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
[J.G. Hamann, 1760]
"A mind that thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language".