tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 28 08:35:42 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: HolQeD Republishing...

Terrence Donnelly ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

As much as it pains me to say it, I think the KLI is
essentially done.  My sense is that Lawrence has moved
on to other things.  And I don't hold this against him
by any means. We owe him a huge debt of gratitude for
being the public face of the KLI and keeping it going
far longer than it had any right to, but one down-side
of his directorship is that there is no means of
succession.

I would personally have to think twice about joining
the KLI at this point, even if it were possible,
because I think even if it revives, the odds are that
it wouldn't revive for long. 

I've been a member of the KLI since 1992, but I have
begun adapting to a post-KLI world.  The archives of
the group are full of essential information, and I
hope they will always remain accessible (which would
include HQ in some format), and this mailing list is
still a wonderful service that I hope continues, but I
don't expect to see the KLI ever go back to the levels
of activity or membership that it once enjoyed (unless
the rumored Star Trek XI movie leads to a general
revival of interest in Klingons!).

-- ter'eS

--- McArdle <[email protected]> wrote:

> Allow me to cast a dissenting vote.  It is
> apparently impossible to join the KLI these days
> (I've tried), so that route to access is blocked for
> anyone who isn't fortunate enough to be a member
> already.  The last thing I'd think you'd want to do
> is turn away interested parties at the door.  From
> this point of view, the more HolQeD articles on the
> wiki, the better.
>    
>   Of course, the best course is to make it possible
> again to join the KLI.  (Step one might be for
> someone at KLI to start answering their e-mail.) 
> I'd gladly join if this were possible.  If anyone
> knows of a way I can do this, please let me know.
>    
>   mIq'ey
>   
> H Myers <[email protected]> wrote:
>   On the surface I would vote against it, since
> HolQeD is one of the 
> things members of the KLI receive as part of their
> membership. If HQ 
> articles were to appear on the web where anyone
> could get them, why 
> purchase a membership to the KLI? (present journal
> droughts aside, of 
> course)
> I imagine that's what Lawrence would say ... but
> then, I'm not 
> Lawrence. He'd be the one whose opinion I'd seek on
> this matter.
> 
> -jI'qel ghojwI'
> 
> ...Paul wrote:
> > Quick note before I'm off to lunch (hence no
> Hol...)
> >
> > Anyone know if there are issues around putting up
> on the wiki the content 
> > of some of the more important articles that were
> published in the HolQeD? 
> > For example, in the same vein as the linguistic
> terms page, I was thinking 
> > of putting up the mathematical terms/syntax that
> was discussed in one of 
> > the really old issues (like volume 5 or
> something?) since I can never 
> > remember where I've seen that syntax, and I'm
> betting quite a few people 
> > probably don't have access to that issue...
> >
> > Likewise, I was thinking about trying to aggregate
> some of the other 
> > items, like the discussions about quantities
> (using /Hoch/ before/after, 
> > how to use the word for 'half', etc...)
> >
> > ...Paul
> >
> > ** ...Paul, [email protected], Insane Engineer
> **
> > ** Visit Project Galactic Guide
> http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
> > "We must become the change we want to see" --
> Mahatma Gandhi
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 
> 
>

Back to archive top level