It is possible that I am being petty in a lot of this. It is hard for me to be humble, harder for me to admit I'm wrong, and hardest of all, I've now learned, to realise that I may still think I'm right, but that doesn't mean I'm going to have my way.
Yes, thank you so much for putting this up. :-) -- nitcion
Some historical examples of the lojbab lesson, as learned by lojbab, are
- The hardliner version of BAI now in use, wherein each is semantically tied to the source gismu;
- The incorporation of seljvajvo, as researched by nitcion, into the reference grammar, while still a nominally unofficial convention, and the resulting hardlinerism towards lujvomaking and lujvo place structures;
- The cutoff at approximately the current number of gismu. With conflicting pressures for new gismu such as the ones in experimental gismu, and those who favored keeping the list of gismu at 1000 or less because that was seen by many at the time as a maximum desirable for a set of roots for an artificial language, lojbab was moderately expansionist, favoring a total more like 2000 than 1000, and no cutoff until we had made gismu or lujvo for all of the words in Helen Eaton's Language Frequency List. The position spearheaded by Tommy Whitlock and a few others won out, and lojbab even had to agree to a few deletions, including his favorite - gumri (see Resurrected gismu);
- lojbab finally breaking down and creating several entries on the wiki tonight, on topics that he thinks are far more important to be discussed by and before the larger community that reads the Lojban mailing list than the highly technical discussions that dominate that forum. These issues need to be discussed however, and if people insist on doing so here rather than there, Lojbab relearns his lesson in humility. %^)