From: "Apache" <apache@digitalkingdom.org>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 00:52:42 -0700
To: webmaster@lojban.org, curtis289@att.net
Subject: [jvsw] Definition Added At Word pepsi -- By krtisfranks
Bcc: jbovlaste-admin@lojban.org
Message-ID: <5384444a.fQQXN7qXXXPfI/kR%webmaster@lojban.org>
User-Agent: Heirloom mailx 12.5 7/5/10
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: 2.0
X-Spam_score_int: 20
X-Spam_bar: ++
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has
 identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
 has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  In jbovlaste, the user krtisfranks has added a definition
   of "pepsi" in the language "English". New Data: Definition: $x_1$ (default:
    Pepsi) is a soda product that is better/equal/worse $x_2$ (li, number; resp.:
    1, 0, -1), and is produced/manufactured by $x_3$ (default: PepsiCo), with
    aforementioned evaluation compared to/against soda product $x_4$ (default:
    the analog/similar soda) of producer/manufactuer $x_5$ (default: the Coca-Cola
    Company) according to the taste preference of, moral judgment of, and overall
    goodness (quality) evaluation by $x_6$ (contextless default: speaker/utterer),
    who is ranked as a fan of the formermost/lattermost [depending on evaluation
    given by $x_2$] product or company with die-hard rating $x_7$ (li, number;
    subjective) on scale $x_8$ (si'o), despite (or because of) hating bad-decision
    product/admitting short-sighted failure (of favored company) $x_9$; where
    evaluator [$x_6$] generally ignores third-party soda product $x_10$, which
    is produced/manufactured by (company) $x_11$, even though said evaluator
   judges the said third-party product and/or producer to have overall goodness/quality
    (taste preference, product design appeal/evaluation, moral judgment, etc.)
    $x_12$ [need not be a number in this case] according to scheme $x_13$ (si'o);
    where the first judgment [$x_2$] is according to scheme/justification $x_14$,
    which really should not need explaining anyway, you nincompoop. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (2.0 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  1.6 RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT   RBL: RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT
                             [173.13.139.235 listed in bb.barracudacentral.org]
  0.4 RDNS_DYNAMIC           Delivered to internal network by host with
                             dynamic-looking rDNS


In jbovlaste, the user krtisfranks has added a
definition of "pepsi" in the language "English".

New Data:

=09Definition:
=09=09$x_1$ (default: Pepsi) is a soda product that is better/equal/wor=
se $x_2$ (li, number; resp.: 1, 0, -1), and is produced/manufactured by=
 $x_3$ (default: PepsiCo), with aforementioned evaluation compared to/a=
gainst soda product $x_4$ (default: the analog/similar soda) of produce=
r/manufactuer $x_5$ (default: the Coca-Cola Company) according to the t=
aste preference of, moral judgment of, and overall goodness (quality) e=
valuation by $x_6$ (contextless default: speaker/utterer), who is ranke=
d as a fan of the formermost/lattermost [depending on evaluation given =
by $x_2$] product or company with die-hard rating $x_7$ (li, number; su=
bjective) on scale $x_8$ (si'o), despite (or because of) hating bad-dec=
ision product/admitting short-sighted failure (of favored company) $x_9=
$; where evaluator [$x_6$] generally ignores third-party soda product $=
x_10$, which is produced/manufactured by (company) $x_11$, even though =
said evaluator judges the said third-party product and/or producer to h=
ave overall goodness/quality (taste preference, product design appeal/e=
valuation, moral judgment, etc.) $x_12$ [need not be a number in this c=
ase] according to scheme $x_13$ (si'o); where the first judgment [$x_2$=
] is according to scheme/justification $x_14$, which really should not =
need explaining anyway, you nincompoop.

=09Notes:
=09=09u'ivla: Character alignment on soda scale.  This is not a simple =
matter of taste preference or of one product being more or less than th=
e other product in some aspect; this is an overall judgment of not only=
 product quality and appearance, but also is a moral judgment of the pr=
oduct, the company, and (in contrast) of the opposing side (including t=
he product, company, and fans thereof); in other words, it is an integr=
al character alignment/trait (integrity) of the judge. If x1 is better =
than x4 in overall goodness according to the judge, then x2 =3D 1; if x=
1 is equal to x4 in overall goodness according to the judge, then x2 =
=3D 0 (and the judge is probably weird); if x1 is worse than x4 in over=
all goodness according to the judge, then x2 =3D -1. See also: {besto},=
 {sodva}.

=09Jargon:
=09=09

=09Gloss Keywords:
=09=09Word: Pepsi, In Sense: morality alignment
=09=09Word: Coca-Cola, In Sense: morality alignment
=09=09Word: Soda War morality alignment, In Sense:=20
=09=09Word: character alignment, In Sense: soda preference
=09=09Word: alignment (soda), In Sense: soda preference

=09Place Keywords:


You can go to <http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/pepsi> to see it.