Re: CHAT: t-shirt

At 9:46 am -0400 27/9/00, Padraic Brown wrote:
>Scripsit Raimundus:
[....]
>>When - before this anti-Klingon rant?
>
>With last year's t-shirt debacle. I didn't pay attention to the whole
>thing, but it died over auxlang ranting and raving.
Ah yes - I wasn't in at the beginning of the thing sice IIRC it started
during the summer when I was off-line.  But I got in towards the end.  I
was very much under the impression that it was largely one particular
person, whom I'd come across often enough on Auxlang, who was upsetting
things here.   Maybe others had joined in earlier - I don't know.
Certainly, he was the one who sent the 'hate-mail' to Fabian that put the
nail in the coffin of the first T-shirt.

This guy doesn't seem to be around at present & I was, perhaps not entirely
accurately, regarding him not as a conlanger but rather as an auxlanger who
unfortunately paid us a visit at an inopportune moment.

[...]
>>
>>Sorry - I'm completely lost here. I don't know what you are trying to say.
>
>Why?
Early morning hypocaffeination, probably  :)

>Some would exclude a conlang for subjective reasons. Seems like
>the same arguments were made when excluding one or another auxlang
>(last year and this year). Or excluding all auxlangs from the shirt,
>for that matter.
I agree.

>In other words, I _can_ understand excluding a
>language for objective reasons (i.e., not made by a listmember,
>copyright infringement); but _can't_ see excluding any one language or
>even a whole type of language for subjective reasons (i.e., that
>language stinks, that kind of language is _not_ what we are about).
I agree - as I hope I made it clear an earlier email.

I know the Esperanto debate is now closed, but personally I feel that
excluding all auxlangs - except, apparently, SolReSol - because they are
auxlangs is a Pyrrhic victory for the Auxlang brigade.

[....]
>
>>I was trying to say exactly what David said when he wrote:
>>[...]
>>>Oh my!  Just as I was about to congratulate us all for having navigated the
>>>auxlang perils and apparently coming to a rational conclusion, we get
>>>anti-conlang protests.  This was not at all expected.  Surely we artlangers
>>>haven't become that myopic.  We don't judge language creations by these
>>>criteria here.  At least I hope we don't.
>>
>>I had hoped so also.  I would've hoped, in fact, that we were imune, Padraig.
>
>Right. Tis a constant struggle.
'tis indeed - and we do fall sometimes.  But at least we try not too.

Ray.


=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
                   [J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================