Received: from 173-13-139-235-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.13.139.235]:49416 helo=jukni.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ao2Ga-00064d-9n for jbovlaste-admin@lojban.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 22:14:09 -0700 Received: by jukni.digitalkingdom.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 06 Apr 2016 22:14:04 -0700 From: "Apache" To: curtis289@att.net Reply-To: webmaster@lojban.org Subject: [jvsw] Definition Edited At Word cmuuugle -- By krtisfranks Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 22:14:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-Id: X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.5 X-Spam_score_int: 5 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it 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 "cmuuugle" in the language "English". Differences: 5,5c5,5 < $x_5$ need not be a member of either of $x_1$ and $x_2$. Typically, $x_4$ (possibly excluding $x_5$) is partitioned by $x_1$ and $x_2$ alone. According to $x_5$ the defining/k characteristic common to all members of $x_2$ is $x_3$ and any of its derived properties; no member of $x_1$, according to $x_5$ possesses property $x_3$, which makes them utterly different and alien from $x_2$ by the standards of $x_5$. This word is different from {drata} or {datygau} in concept in that 1) $x_5$ is not altering/causing $x_1$ to lack $x_3$ while $x_1$ has $x_3$ (for example: a community of amputees is not formed by $x_5$ hacking limbs off of various people) - in fact, these states may be somewhat inherent/intrinsic to the members of the groups or to the groups themselves (as an emergent property) - and 2) the importance of this difference is enough to unify each $x_1$ and $x_2$ and separate them from eachother in the mind of $x_5$, despite the possibility that they otherwise possess no group-internal similarities or group-external mutual differences. The only commonality guaranteed in $x_2$ is $x_3$; the only commonality in $x_1$ is a lack of $x_3$; these each are their sole respective defining features. No secrecy or lack of knowledge/access is implied, unlike {mugle}. --- > $x_5$ need not be a member of either of $x_1$ and $x_2$. Typically, $x_4$ (possibly excluding $x_5$) is partitioned by $x_1$ and $x_2$ alone. According to $x_5$ the defining/k characteristic common to all members of $x_2$ is $x_3$ and any of its derived properties; no member of $x_1$, according to $x_5$ possesses property $x_3$, which makes them utterly different and alien from $x_2$ by the standards of $x_5$. This word is different from {drata} or {datygau} in concept in that 1) $x_5$ is not altering/causing $x_1$ to lack $x_3$ while $x_1$ has $x_3$ (for example: a community of amputees is not formed by $x_5$ hacking limbs off of various people) - in fact, these states may be somewhat inherent/intrinsic to the members of the groups or to the [...] Content analysis details: (0.5 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: lojban.org] 1.4 RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT RBL: No description available. [173.13.139.235 listed in bb.barracudacentral.org] -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 1.0 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS In jbovlaste, the user krtisfranks has edited a definition of "cmuuugle" in the language "English". Differences: 5,5c5,5 < $x_5$ need not be a member of either of $x_1$ and $x_2$. Typically, $x_4$ (possibly excluding $x_5$) is partitioned by $x_1$ and $x_2$ alone. According to $x_5$ the defining/k characteristic common to all members of $x_2$ is $x_3$ and any of its derived properties; no member of $x_1$, according to $x_5$ possesses property $x_3$, which makes them utterly different and alien from $x_2$ by the standards of $x_5$. This word is different from {drata} or {datygau} in concept in that 1) $x_5$ is not altering/causing $x_1$ to lack $x_3$ while $x_1$ has $x_3$ (for example: a community of amputees is not formed by $x_5$ hacking limbs off of various people) - in fact, these states may be somewhat inherent/intrinsic to the members of the groups or to the groups themselves (as an emergent property) - and 2) the importance of this difference is enough to unify each $x_1$ and $x_2$ and separate them from eachother in the mind of $x_5$, despite the possibility that they otherwise possess no group-internal similarities or group-external mutual differences. The only commonality guaranteed in $x_2$ is $x_3$; the only commonality in $x_1$ is a lack of $x_3$; these each are their sole respective defining features. No secrecy or lack of knowledge/access is implied, unlike {mugle}. --- > $x_5$ need not be a member of either of $x_1$ and $x_2$. Typically, $x_4$ (possibly excluding $x_5$) is partitioned by $x_1$ and $x_2$ alone. According to $x_5$ the defining/k characteristic common to all members of $x_2$ is $x_3$ and any of its derived properties; no member of $x_1$, according to $x_5$ possesses property $x_3$, which makes them utterly different and alien from $x_2$ by the standards of $x_5$. This word is different from {drata} or {datygau} in concept in that 1) $x_5$ is not altering/causing $x_1$ to lack $x_3$ while $x_1$ has $x_3$ (for example: a community of amputees is not formed by $x_5$ hacking limbs off of various people) - in fact, these states may be somewhat inherent/intrinsic to the members of the groups or to the groups themselves (as an emergent property) - and 2) the importance of this difference is enough to unify each $x_1$ and $x_2$ and separate them from eachother in the mind of $x_5$, despite the possibility that they otherwise possess no group-internal similarities or group-external mutual differences. The only commonality guaranteed in $x_2$ is $x_3$; the only commonality in $x_1$ is a lack of $x_3$; these each are their sole respective defining features. No secrecy or lack of knowledge/access is implied, unlike {mugle} (which has a reference set that is a subset of the reference set of this word). 12,12d11 < Word: out-group, In Sense: \n13a13,13 \n> Word: out-group, In Sense: Old Data: Definition: $x_1$ (mass/group/set) is the (primary) out-group counterpart to in-group $x_2$ (mass/group/set) with respect to characteristic $x_3$ (ka; truth/proposition), which is possessed/satisfied by $x_2$, where both $x_1$ and $x_2$ are nonempty, strict, mutually disjoint subdivisions of supergroup/superset $x_4$ (mass/group/set), with the othering performed (mentally; not necessarily in a way externally manifested) according to the psyche of $x_5$; $x_5$ others $x_1$ from $x_2$ around focal issue/property $x_3$ Notes: $x_5$ need not be a member of either of $x_1$ and $x_2$. Typically, $x_4$ (possibly excluding $x_5$) is partitioned by $x_1$ and $x_2$ alone. According to $x_5$ the defining/k characteristic common to all members of $x_2$ is $x_3$ and any of its derived properties; no member of $x_1$, according to $x_5$ possesses property $x_3$, which makes them utterly different and alien from $x_2$ by the standards of $x_5$. This word is different from {drata} or {datygau} in concept in that 1) $x_5$ is not altering/causing $x_1$ to lack $x_3$ while $x_1$ has $x_3$ (for example: a community of amputees is not formed by $x_5$ hacking limbs off of various people) - in fact, these states may be somewhat inherent/intrinsic to the members of the groups or to the groups themselves (as an emergent property) - and 2) the importance of this difference is enough to unify each $x_1$ and $x_2$ and separate them from eachother in the mind of $x_5$, despite the possibility that they otherwise possess no group-internal similarities or group-external mutual differences. The only commonality guaranteed in $x_2$ is $x_3$; the only commonality in $x_1$ is a lack of $x_3$; these each are their sole respective defining features. No secrecy or lack of knowledge/access is implied, unlike {mugle}. Jargon: Gloss Keywords: Word: in-group, In Sense: Word: out-group, In Sense: Word: othering, In Sense: verb/process Place Keywords: New Data: Definition: $x_1$ (mass/group/set) is the (primary) out-group counterpart to in-group $x_2$ (mass/group/set) with respect to characteristic $x_3$ (ka; truth/proposition), which is possessed/satisfied by $x_2$, where both $x_1$ and $x_2$ are nonempty, strict, mutually disjoint subdivisions of supergroup/superset $x_4$ (mass/group/set), with the othering performed (mentally; not necessarily in a way externally manifested) according to the psyche of $x_5$; $x_5$ others $x_1$ from $x_2$ around focal issue/property $x_3$ Notes: $x_5$ need not be a member of either of $x_1$ and $x_2$. Typically, $x_4$ (possibly excluding $x_5$) is partitioned by $x_1$ and $x_2$ alone. According to $x_5$ the defining/k characteristic common to all members of $x_2$ is $x_3$ and any of its derived properties; no member of $x_1$, according to $x_5$ possesses property $x_3$, which makes them utterly different and alien from $x_2$ by the standards of $x_5$. This word is different from {drata} or {datygau} in concept in that 1) $x_5$ is not altering/causing $x_1$ to lack $x_3$ while $x_1$ has $x_3$ (for example: a community of amputees is not formed by $x_5$ hacking limbs off of various people) - in fact, these states may be somewhat inherent/intrinsic to the members of the groups or to the groups themselves (as an emergent property) - and 2) the importance of this difference is enough to unify each $x_1$ and $x_2$ and separate them from eachother in the mind of $x_5$, despite the possibility that they otherwise possess no group-internal similarities or group-external mutual differences. The only commonality guaranteed in $x_2$ is $x_3$; the only commonality in $x_1$ is a lack of $x_3$; these each are their sole respective defining features. No secrecy or lack of knowledge/access is implied, unlike {mugle} (which has a reference set that is a subset of the reference set of this word). Jargon: Gloss Keywords: Word: in-group, In Sense: Word: othering, In Sense: verb/process Word: out-group, In Sense: Place Keywords: You can go to to see it.