User:Mrodowicz/sandbox

Robert (Bob) LeChevalier [alias: la lojbab] (b.1953) is a former software systems contractor who is best known as the leader and co-founder of the constructed language, Lojban. He worked to develop the language in 1987, as an offshoot of another constructed language, Loglan, which in turn was invented by American sociologist, James Cooke Brown, in 1955. LeChevalier led Lojban’s governing body, the Logical Language Group (LLG), as President from 1988-2003 and again from 2010-2015. As of 2022, he remains a director of the LLG, a position he has held continuously since 1988.

Involvement with Loglan
Bob LeChevalier was born in California, USA in 1953 and obtained a B.S degree in Astrophysics in Lyman Briggs College at Michigan State University. He first met James Cooke Brown in 1979, in San Diego, California, where both resided at the time. During their meeting, Cooke explained to LeChevalier the rationale and design of his Loglan project, and LeChevalier was persuaded to become involved with the project, despite his prior lack of knowledge about linguistics.

In 1986, LeChevalier received approval from Brown to lead an effort to produce a new Loglan dictionary. This effort ultimately led to tensions between the two men, with Brown suspecting LeChevalier of attempting to usurp power through his actions. LeChevalier denied to Brown that he was interested in any sort of power grab, but the relations between the two men remained tense through 1986-1987. Tensions had already emerged in the Loglan project through the early ‘80’s, as several members revolted, explaining their actions as being in opposition to the power Brown exerted over the project and his alleged unwillingness to give members control over the development of the language. This internal conflict did much to stall progress in the development of Loglan during this period.

This time around, Brown claimed intellectual property rights over the work LeChevalier and others had done on the project and finally he demanded that LeChevalier sign an ‘Afficionado Agreement’ with a ‘non-disclosure’ clause or resign from the movement altogether. LeChevalier refused either course of action, believing his own views about member control of the language project to be more closely aligned with the overall viewpoint of Loglan members, than was Brown’s position.

Development of Lojban
In 1987, LeChevalier, Nora Tansky (who would marry him later that year) and two other Loglanists proceeded to develop a new language vocabulary project, which they came to name Loglan-88 (later to become Lojban). At this time, LeChevalier and his associates were not seeking to break with the original project but wanted to test how the Loglan membership would respond to their initiative. LeChevalier hosted the second Logfest [ie. member gathering] (the first was held in 1986) in August, 1987, at his new place of residence in Fairfax, Virginia. Of the 18 Loglan members in attendance, all 18 voted in favour of a split with Brown’s main faction, although it is likely that most (LeChevalier included) did not intend for this split to become permanent. Lechevalier and Tansky were married in October of that year, exchanging wedding vows which were written in the early form of what would become Lojban.

In early 1988, LeChevalier and his group debuted Loglan-88 at the Evecon Science Fiction Convention. At this time, LeChevalier claimed to have a Loglan-88 mailing list of 300 individuals compared to Brown’s so-called ‘Afficionado’ supporters, whose number LeChevalier put at 50 members. In March, LeChevalier received a letter from Brown, asserting that he was in violation of Loglan’s trademark, which was to be registered shortly, and should he, LeChevalier, continue with his violations, he would risk being sued, quote: ‘for the recovery of profits, damages and costs, with, as you may know, the possibility of treble damages and attorney’s fees.’ Shortly following Brown’s letter, Loglan-88 was renamed Lojban (from the words logji [logic] and bangu [language]) and the newly formed governing body of the new formation, the Logical Language Group (LLG) [Lojban: la .lojbangirz.], which was founded in the previous year, now became a legally incorporated entity, with LeChevalier serving as its first President. In 1989, the LLG successfully challenged the Loglan trademark in a court of law, which was upheld in 1992, whereby Brown lost his legal appeal. At that time, LeChevalier remarked that he felt slighted by Brown, who not only refused to speak to Lechevalier at the 1992 appeal proceedings but refused even to acknowledge his presence.

Following Brown’s death from a heart attack in 2000, there was a hope between some members of both communities of a reunification process, but this hope was short-lived. In any case, Brown had written a clause into his will, that no rapprochement between the two organisations should be entered into if LeChevalier was to be involved in the process. LeChevalier, for his part, always claimed that he strongly favoured a reunification process between the competing groups.

LeChevalier was editor and publisher of the early Lojban news journals, Ju'i Lobypli and le lojbo karni. He also wrote 6 chapters of a proposed Lojban textbook, which was later rewritten and expanded into 22 lessons, by fellow Lojbanist, John Cowan.

Personal life
LeChevalier and his wife, Nora, adopted two children from Russia in 1992. His hobbies include genealogy, role-playing games, and reading science fiction and history and he is a moderately competent speaker of the Russian language.

The Pledge
Candidates have been encouraged by organisations, namely Indivisible Project and Individual Action, to take a pledge of unity, known as 'We Are Indivisible'. This means supporting the eventual Democratic nominee, should the candidates own nomination be unsuccessful. The stance of each candidate is stated as follows:

Correct rowspan numbers, with sorting in working order:

Note that, after sorting, the rowspanning cells are cut into rows and their content is repeated (the year "2014" in the example).

Incorrect rowspan numbers breaking sorting, and causing mix-ups in rows and columns:

In the 21st Century, the East-West dichotomy is present in the field of international relations, and remains an important division, in the international arena. The East-West dichotomy, can be contextualised within the framework of modern political, economic and military institutions. The characteristics of these can be traced back to the early post-WWII era, concurrent with the onset of the Cold War.

Late 20th Century
In the post-WWII era, with the arrival of the Cold War, the greater portion of the Western world, led by the United States, France & other European states, created institutions (military, economic & political) which would see greater cooperation between the countries of war-ravaged Europe and other western countries throughout the globe. Consequently, NATO, the western military alliance was born (1949), as was the European Coal and Steel Community (1952) (the precursor of the modern European Union) and subsequently the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1961). The so-called ‘Eastern bloc', because these countries lay east of western Europe and were Soviet influenced (rather than their being culturally ‘eastern’), was made up exclusively of communist countries in the east, mainly from Europe, who formed their own institutions to rival the Western ones, primarily Comecon (economic) (1949-1991) and the Warsaw Pact (military) (1955-1991). On the other hand the Global South (or South-East), sometimes referred to as the Third World (ie. belonging neither to the First World of the USA and its allies or the Second World of the Soviet Union and its allies), formed their own institutions, primarily that of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) (1961), and the Group of 77 (G-77) (1964). The Global South countries generally viewed the Cold War in the light of an intra-Western struggle, between two hegemon’s (USA and Soviet Union). The Global South contended that neither of the two superpower blocs had much real connection or association with the struggles or challenges faced by the Global South/Eastern World. There was little cross-membership of the institutions outlined above, between the broadly defined Western World (developed countries, both capitalist & communist)) and Global South (Eastern World), but there were a few countries with membership of both groupings. Cuba, a founding member of NAM, also joined Comecon in 1972, whilst a newly reunited Vietnam joined NAM in 1976 and initiated membership with Comecon, two years later, in 1978. Yugoslavia, a pivotal founding member of NAM, was an interesting case, given that it was a European (Western) country, with membership of an Eastern World grouping. This was further compounded by the fact that Yugoslavia negotiated an associate membership of Comecon in 1964. Yugoslavia, Cuba and Vietnam were also founding members of the Group of 77, whilst Romania joined the grouping in 1976, in spite of its membership of both the Warsaw Pact & Comecon.

21st Century
The end of the Cold War and dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, saw major changes in the style & dynamics of international relations. Both Comecon and the Warsaw Pact were dissolved abruptly, and the former Soviet satellite states of Central & Eastern Europe, actively sought out membership of the Western institutions. Subsequently, most of these countries became firmly anchored to the West (or North-West), having joined or applied to join the various Western organisations. Consequently the membership of the OECD, EU and NATO expanded significantly from 1990. Reciprocally, the membership of the Global South/Eastern World institutions likewise expanded largely in the same time.

The combined membership of the OECD (36 members), EU (28) & NATO (29) stood at 43 countries in 2018. This includes the 36 OECD members + 5 EU countries not in the OECD (Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Malta & Romania) + 2 NATO countries not in OECD or EU (Albania & Montenegro). On the other hand, the Eastern World institutions: expanded Group of 77, numbers 134 members (133 UN member states + State of Palestine) and NAM numbers 120 members (119 UN member states + State of Palestine). Collectively, the Group of 77 & NAM share a total of 136 UN member states + State of Palestine. This includes the G-77 133 UN member states + 3 NAM states not in the G-77 (Azerbaijan, Belarus & Uzbekistan). With the notable exception of Chile, there is no country with full membership of both the Western & Eastern world key institutions. Bosnia & Herzegovina, is another interesting case, in that it is a member of the Group of 77, but also has negotiated a Membership Action Plan for NATO (ie. candidacy for NATO membership). Should Bosnia & Herzegovina join NATO, it will need to decide whether it wishes to retain its G-77 membership (or perhaps whether it might be permitted to do so by the G-77). The general practice has been for a member to withdraw its membership of a major Eastern World institution on joining a major Western World institution. The following has occurred in the past:
 * Mexico – founding member of G-77, discontinued its membership of that grouping on joining the OECD in 1994, although Mexico remains a member of the smaller sub-group the G-24.
 * South Korea - founding member of G-77, discontinued its membership of that grouping on joining the OECD in 1996
 * Cyprus – founding member of both NAM and G-77, discontinued its membership of both institutions on joining the EU in 2004
 * Malta – member of NAM since 1973 and G-77 since 1976, discontinued its membership of both institutions on joining the EU in 2004
 * Romania – member of G-77 from 1976, discontinued its membership of that grouping on joining the EU in 2007

Of the total 193 UN member states of the world, 43 states belong to at least one key Western organisation and 136 states belong to at least one key Eastern organisation. After taking into account Chile, which is in both groupings, 178 out of 193 UN countries are aligned in these two camps. Therefore, only 15 UN member countries are not counted among those belonging to either the key Eastern (NAM, G-77) or Western institutions (OECD, EU, NATO). All those in question are either microstates or former republics of the USSR or of the former Yugoslavia.

Anomalies & Inconsistencies
Despite the relatively neat divide, between the Eastern and Western world, by reference to some of the largest modern international and regional institutions, there is no universal agreement on the exact delineation between what constitutes an Eastern or Western country, respectively. Some possible discrepancies in terms of alignment, include, South Korea (originally aligned East), which has anchored itself to the West, but is historically an eastern country. Similarly for Japan, Turkey and Israel (all members of Western institutions), alternative arguments can be made as to whether these countries are historically more eastern or western. Bosnia & Herzegovina, is a G-77 member, but it may inevitably find itself politically entrenched in ‘the West’, if it proceeds with NATO (& EU) membership, which would not run counter to its European roots & geography.

Latin America is mainly aligned with the East (except Mexico, with Chile remaining a curious borderline case) but there is no consensus as to whether these countries are characteristically more eastern or western. A similar question may be raised in relation to Russia and most of the former republics of the USSR, and this remains the single biggest regional group of countries which have remained unaligned with either bloc.