Received: from 173-13-139-235-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.13.139.235]:59544 helo=jukni.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WpCcc-0000Mv-P1; Tue, 27 May 2014 01:20:40 -0700 Received: by jukni.digitalkingdom.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 27 May 2014 01:20:34 -0700 From: "Apache" Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 01:20:34 -0700 To: webmaster@lojban.org, curtis289@att.net Subject: [jvsw] Definition Edited At Word pepsi -- By krtisfranks Bcc: jbovlaste-admin@lojban.org Message-ID: <53844ad2.wSsYW8jK8UuuuM+4%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/archrival 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 (judge/evaluator) $x_6$ (probable contextless default: speaker/utterer), who is ranked as a fan of the formermost/lattermost [depending on evaluation given by $x_2$; see notes] 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 [see note] 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; [for absolute [...] 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/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 (judge/evaluato= r) $x_6$ (probable contextless default: speaker/utterer), who is ranked= as a fan of the formermost/lattermost [depending on evaluation given b= y $x_2$; see notes] product or company with die-hard rating $x_7$ (li, = number; subjective) on scale $x_8$ (si'o), despite (or because of) hati= ng bad-decision product/admitting short-sighted failure (of favored [se= e note] company) $x_9$; where evaluator [$x_6$] generally ignores third= -party soda product $x_{10}$, which is produced/manufactured by (compan= y) $x_{11}$, even though said evaluator judges the said third-party pro= duct and/or producer to have overall goodness/quality (taste preference= , product design appeal/evaluation, moral judgment, etc.) $x_{12}$ [nee= d not be a number in this case] according to scheme $x_{13}$ (si'o); wh= ere 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. --- > =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; [for absolute default: Coke/Coca-Cola]) of producer/m= anufactuer (enemy) $x_5$ (default: whichever other (opposing) company m= akes sense [for absolutely default case: the Coca-Cola Company]) accord= ing to the taste preference of, moral judgment of, and overall goodness= (quality) evaluation by (judge/evaluator) $x_6$ (probable contextless = default: speaker/utterer), who is ranked as a fan of the formermost/lat= termost [depending on evaluation given by $x_2$; see notes] 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/admitti= ng short-sighted failure (of favored [see note] company) $x_9$ (default= : the publicly-declared worst one/the most decried error); where evalua= tor [$x_6$] generally ignores third-party soda product $x_{10}$, which = is produced/manufactured by (company) $x_{11}$, even though said evalua= tor 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] acco= rding to scheme $x_{13}$ (si'o); where the first judgment [$x_2$] is ac= cording 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. 5,5c5,5 < =09=09u'ivla: Character alignment on soda scale. This is not a simpl= e matter of taste preference or of one product being more or less than = the other product in some aspect (subjective or otherwise); this is an = overall judgment of not only product quality and appearance, but is als= o a moral judgment of the product, the company, and (in contrast) of th= e opposing side (including the product, company, and fans thereof); in = other words, it is an integral character alignment/trait (integrity) of= the judge. If x1 is better than x4 in overall goodness according to th= e judge, then x2 =3D 1 and the judge is a fan of x1 (and probably of x3= ); if x1 is equal to x4 in overall goodness according to the judge, the= n 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 and the judge = is a fan of x4 (and probably of x5). See also: {besto}, {sodva}. --- > =09=09u'ivla: Character alignment on soda scale. This is not a simpl= e matter of taste preference or of one product being more or less than = the other product in some aspect (subjective or otherwise); this is an = overall judgment of not only product quality and appearance, but is als= o a moral judgment of the product, the company, and (in contrast) of th= e opposing side (including the product, company, and fans thereof); in = other words, it is an integral character alignment/trait (integrity) of= the judge. Pepsi and Coca-Cola are taken to be directly opposing force= s and archenemies/diametrically opposite alignments (by defaults, speci= fication of of one determines the other uniquely). If x1 is better than= x4 in overall goodness according to the judge, then x2 =3D 1 and the j= udge is a fan of x1 (and probably of x3); if x1 is equal to x4 in overa= ll goodness according to the judge, then x2 =3D 0 (and the judge is pro= bably weird); if x1 is worse than x4 in overall goodness according to t= he judge, then x2 =3D -1 and the judge is a fan of x4 (and probably of = x5). The defaults work "backward" from what is given: specification of = any of the products or companies in the first 5 terbri (excluding the j= ugment x2, at some level) uniquely determines the other terbri by defau= lt; PepsiCo is is associated by default with product Pepsi, the Coca-Co= la company is associated by default with product Coke/Coca-Cola; by def= ault, alignment x2 being n toward Pepsi/Coca-Cola (resp.) yields alignm= ent -n toward Coca-Cola/Pepsi (resp.). See also: {besto}, {sodva}. 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/= 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 (judge/evaluator)= $x_6$ (probable contextless default: speaker/utterer), who is ranked a= s a fan of the formermost/lattermost [depending on evaluation given by = $x_2$; see notes] product or company with die-hard rating $x_7$ (li, nu= mber; subjective) on scale $x_8$ (si'o), despite (or because of) hating= bad-decision product/admitting short-sighted failure (of favored [see = note] company) $x_9$; where evaluator [$x_6$] generally ignores third-p= arty soda product $x_{10}$, which is produced/manufactured by (company)= $x_{11}$, even though said evaluator judges the said third-party produ= ct 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); wher= e the first judgment [$x_2$] is according to scheme/justification $x_{1= 4}$, 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. =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 and the judge is a fan of x1 (and probably of x3);= if x1 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 o= verall goodness according to the judge, then x2 =3D -1 and the judge is= a fan of x4 (and probably of x5). 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; [for absolute default: Coke/Coca-Cola]) of producer/man= ufactuer (enemy) $x_5$ (default: whichever other (opposing) company mak= es sense [for absolutely default case: the Coca-Cola Company]) accordin= g to the taste preference of, moral judgment of, and overall goodness (= quality) evaluation by (judge/evaluator) $x_6$ (probable contextless de= fault: speaker/utterer), who is ranked as a fan of the formermost/latte= rmost [depending on evaluation given by $x_2$; see notes] product or co= mpany 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 [see note] company) $x_9$ (default: = the publicly-declared worst one/the most decried error); where evaluato= r [$x_6$] generally ignores third-party soda product $x_{10}$, which is= produced/manufactured by (company) $x_{11}$, even though said evaluato= r judges the said third-party product and/or producer to have overall g= oodness/quality (taste preference, product design appeal/evaluation, mo= ral judgment, etc.) $x_{12}$ [need not be a number in this case] accord= ing to scheme $x_{13}$ (si'o); where the first judgment [$x_2$] is acco= rding to scheme/justification $x_{14}$, which really should not need ex= plaining anyway, you nincompoop. $x_6$ 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. Pepsi and Coca-Cola are taken to be directly opposing forces = and archenemies/diametrically opposite alignments (by defaults, specifi= cation of of one determines the other uniquely). If x1 is better than x= 4 in overall goodness according to the judge, then x2 =3D 1 and the jud= ge is a fan of x1 (and probably of x3); if x1 is equal to x4 in overall= goodness according to the judge, then x2 =3D 0 (and the judge is proba= bly weird); if x1 is worse than x4 in overall goodness according to the= judge, then x2 =3D -1 and the judge is a fan of x4 (and probably of x5= ). The defaults work "backward" from what is given: specification of an= y of the products or companies in the first 5 terbri (excluding the jug= ment x2, at some level) uniquely determines the other terbri by default= ; PepsiCo is is associated by default with product Pepsi, the Coca-Cola= company is associated by default with product Coke/Coca-Cola; by defau= lt, alignment x2 being n toward Pepsi/Coca-Cola (resp.) yields alignmen= t -n toward Coca-Cola/Pepsi (resp.). 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.