Re: CHAT: closet conlanging >> definitions?

Matt Pearson wrote:

>  But as long
> as a sufficiently large number of people are interested in pursuing a
> topic, I think we should keep it on-line, regardless of whether or not it's
> strictly conlang-related.  We should just be more careful about using the
> "CHAT" tag...
I tend to agree.  I wrote what I did in my last post because I feared
that this would degenerate into something like we had recently about
the relative merits of various political ideologies (something which
I take full responsibility for the part I had in it).  Insofar as this stays on the
topic of the analogy of closeted homosexuality and closeted conlanging,
I see nothing wrong with it.  It is every individual's responsibility to
decide for themselves whether they want to be involved in some of
the metatheoretical discussions that go on about the conlanging experience,
and as filters are available to weed out unwanted posts, I see no reason
why the rest of us can't be involved in that. Indeed, this is probably
the only forum where we will ever be able to discuss such things.

=======================================
Tom Wier <twier@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

"Only the educated are free." - Epictetus
=======================================