Received: from 173-13-139-235-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.13.139.235]:58911 helo=jukni.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WpCMf-0000AS-8k; Tue, 27 May 2014 01:04:11 -0700 Received: by jukni.digitalkingdom.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 27 May 2014 01:04:05 -0700 From: "Apache" Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 01:04:05 -0700 To: webmaster@lojban.org, curtis289@att.net Subject: [jvsw] Definition Edited At Word pepsi -- By krtisfranks Bcc: jbovlaste-admin@lojban.org Message-ID: <538446f5.iTfDZqrxmEM/AoZf%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: 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 edited a definition of "pepsi" in the language "English". Differences: 2,2c2,2 < $x_1$ (default: Pepsi) is a soda product that is better/equal/worse $x_2$ (li, number; resp.: 1, 0, -1; no default), and is produced/manufactured by $x_3$ (default: whichever company makes sense [for absolutely default case: PepsiCo]), with aforementioned evaluation compared to/against soda product $x_4$ (default: the analog/similar but competing soda) of producer/manufactuer (enemy) $x_5$ (default: whichever other (opposing) company makes sense [for absolutely default case: 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. $x_6$ has soda character alignment $x_2$ toward product $x_1$ and company $x_3$ that produces it. --- > $x_1$ (default: Pepsi) is a soda product that is better/equal/worse $x_2$ (li, number; resp.: 1, 0, -1; no default), and is produced/manufactured by $x_3$ (default: whichever company makes sense [for absolutely default case: PepsiCo]), with aforementioned evaluation compared to/against soda product $x_4$ (default: the analog/similar but competing/archrival soda) of producer/manufactuer (enemy) $x_5$ (default: whichever other (opposing) company [...] 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 edited a definition of "pepsi" in the language "English". Differences: 2,2c2,2 < =09=09$x_1$ (default: Pepsi) is a soda product that is better/equal/w= orse $x_2$ (li, number; resp.: 1, 0, -1; no default), and is produced/m= anufactured by $x_3$ (default: whichever company makes sense [for absol= utely default case: PepsiCo]), with aforementioned evaluation compared = to/against soda product $x_4$ (default: the analog/similar but competin= g soda) of producer/manufactuer (enemy) $x_5$ (default: whichever other= (opposing) company makes sense [for absolutely default case: the Coca-= Cola Company]) according to the taste preference of, moral judgment of,= and overall goodness (quality) evaluation by $x_6$ (contextless defaul= t: speaker/utterer), who is ranked as a fan of the formermost/lattermos= t [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), despi= te (or because of) hating bad-decision product/admitting short-sighted = failure (of favored company) $x_9$; where evaluator [$x_6$] generally i= gnores third-party soda product $x_10$, which is produced/manufactured = by (company) $x_11$, even though said evaluator judges the said third-p= arty product and/or producer to have overall goodness/quality (taste pr= eference, 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= . $x_6$ has soda character alignment $x_2$ toward product $x_1$ and com= pany $x_3$ that produces it. --- > =09=09$x_1$ (default: Pepsi) is a soda product that is better/equal/w= orse $x_2$ (li, number; resp.: 1, 0, -1; no default), and is produced/m= anufactured by $x_3$ (default: whichever company makes sense [for absol= utely default case: PepsiCo]), with aforementioned evaluation compared = to/against soda product $x_4$ (default: the analog/similar but competin= g/archrival soda) of producer/manufactuer (enemy) $x_5$ (default: which= ever other (opposing) company makes sense [for absolutely default case:= the Coca-Cola Company]) according to the taste preference of, moral ju= dgment of, and overall goodness (quality) evaluation by $x_6$ (contextl= ess 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 shor= t-sighted failure (of favored company) $x_9$; where evaluator [$x_6$] g= enerally ignores third-party soda product $x_10$, which is produced/man= ufactured by (company) $x_11$, even though said evaluator judges the sa= id third-party product and/or producer to have overall goodness/quality= (taste preference, product design appeal/evaluation, moral judgment, e= tc.) $x_12$ [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/jus= tification $x_14$, which really should not need explaining anyway, you = nincompoop. $x_6$ has soda character alignment $x_2$ toward product $x_= 1$ and company $x_3$ that produces it. Old 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; no default), and is produced/man= ufactured by $x_3$ (default: whichever company makes sense [for absolut= ely default case: PepsiCo]), with aforementioned evaluation compared to= /against soda product $x_4$ (default: the analog/similar but competing = soda) of producer/manufactuer (enemy) $x_5$ (default: whichever other (= opposing) company makes sense [for absolutely default case: the Coca-Co= la Company]) according to the taste preference of, moral judgment of, a= nd 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-ha= rd rating $x_7$ (li, number; subjective) on scale $x_8$ (si'o), despite= (or because of) hating bad-decision product/admitting short-sighted fa= ilure (of favored company) $x_9$; where evaluator [$x_6$] generally ign= ores third-party soda product $x_10$, which is produced/manufactured by= (company) $x_11$, even though said evaluator judges the said third-par= ty product and/or producer to have overall goodness/quality (taste pref= erence, 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. = $x_6$ has soda character alignment $x_2$ toward product $x_1$ and compa= ny $x_3$ that produces it. =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 (subjective or otherwise); this is an ov= erall judgment of not only product quality and appearance, but is also = a moral judgment of the product, the company, and (in contrast) of the = opposing side (including the product, company, and fans thereof); in ot= her words, it is an integral character alignment/trait (integrity) of t= he judge. If x1 is better than x4 in overall goodness according to the = judge, then x2 =3D 1; if x1 is equal to x4 in overall goodness accordin= g to the judge, then x2 =3D 0 (and the judge is probably weird); if x1 = is worse than x4 in overall goodness according to the judge, then x2 = =3D -1. See also: {besto}, {sodva}. =09Jargon: =09=09 =09Gloss Keywords: =09=09Word: Coca-Cola, In Sense: morality alignment =09=09Word: Pepsi, In Sense: morality alignment =09=09Word: Soda War morality alignment, In Sense:=20 =09=09Word: alignment (soda), In Sense: soda preference =09=09Word: character alignment (soda), In Sense: soda preference =09Place Keywords: 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; no default), and is produced/man= ufactured by $x_3$ (default: whichever company makes sense [for absolut= ely default case: PepsiCo]), with aforementioned evaluation compared to= /against soda product $x_4$ (default: the analog/similar but competing/= archrival soda) of producer/manufactuer (enemy) $x_5$ (default: whichev= er other (opposing) company makes sense [for absolutely default case: t= he Coca-Cola Company]) according to the taste preference of, moral judg= ment of, and overall goodness (quality) evaluation by $x_6$ (contextles= s default: speaker/utterer), who is ranked as a fan of the formermost/l= attermost [depending on evaluation given by $x_2$] product or company w= ith 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 [$x_6$] gen= erally ignores third-party soda product $x_10$, which is produced/manuf= actured 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/justi= fication $x_14$, which really should not need explaining anyway, you ni= ncompoop. $x_6$ has soda character alignment $x_2$ toward product $x_1$= and company $x_3$ that produces it. =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 (subjective or otherwise); this is an ov= erall judgment of not only product quality and appearance, but is also = a moral judgment of the product, the company, and (in contrast) of the = opposing side (including the product, company, and fans thereof); in ot= her words, it is an integral character alignment/trait (integrity) of t= he judge. If x1 is better than x4 in overall goodness according to the = judge, then x2 =3D 1; if x1 is equal to x4 in overall goodness accordin= g to the judge, then x2 =3D 0 (and the judge is probably weird); if x1 = is worse than x4 in overall goodness according to the judge, then x2 = =3D -1. See also: {besto}, {sodva}. =09Jargon: =09=09 =09Gloss Keywords: =09=09Word: Coca-Cola, In Sense: morality alignment =09=09Word: Pepsi, In Sense: morality alignment =09=09Word: Soda War morality alignment, In Sense:=20 =09=09Word: alignment (soda), In Sense: soda preference =09=09Word: character alignment (soda), In Sense: soda preference =09Place Keywords: You can go to to see it.