>Spivak is personally important to me. I don't think I've overstated my feelings on this matter in the least.
OK. It's alright to have that. I'm just curious how that is compatible with what you've stated here: http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg36544.html >Inclusivity: Language is part of culture and identity, and I'm not comfortable codifying Agora's >culture to be so exclusive. We already have measures against ambiguity that don't disavow entire >tongues. Wouldn't enforcing Spivak be making it "exclusive"? Aren't there other (potentially culturally-influenced) ways to express yourself? Or are those not alright if they don't include Spivak?
