Re: serving the needs of Lojban learners

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

That you were singled out as a non-lurker does NOT mean I don't want your
opinion. I juist wanted to make sure theat on this issue, the lurkers
were not shut out by the others.

We tried something like you suggested once, by setting up the Sandpit
list (Jimbobs list) for the oneswho had shown interest in the heavy discussions
(it was not volumen, but type of discussion).  IT worked when
Cowan and I were the only ones who intitated topics, because we were pretty
consistent in deciding which topics we would post to which list.
But the Jimbobs list was maintained informally - it wasn;t a listserv, but
an alias that Cowan used, and everyone else copied from his headers.

The other problem, of course is that Cowan and I don't have time to
maintain OR particiapte in such a list, but one of us would feel an
obligation to do the latter anyway.  It would be nice if youguys could keep
you high level discussions from coming around to questions that Cowan or I have
to answer, but that seems to be the nature of the community right now.

I do have records of everone who has signed on Lojban List in the past,
but not pulled out in any usefuil way except for those before 8/94, which is
where my current mail backlog starts (actually I just finished 8/94 and
started
on 9/94 come to think of it).

lojbab