Received: from 173-13-139-235-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.13.139.235]:49062 helo=jukni.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1cQsGg-0001BY-2k for jbovlaste-admin@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:59:03 -0800 Received: by jukni.digitalkingdom.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:58:58 -0800 From: "Apache" To: curtis289@att.net Reply-To: webmaster@lojban.org Subject: [jvsw] Definition Edited At Word feiksti -- By krtisfranks Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:58:58 -0800 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 "feiksti" in the language "English". Differences: 5,5c5,5 < This word is equivalent to {tolza'i}. However, there is no hint of it being negative or negated; in fact, it is a positive and affirmative predicate (think of nonexistemce as being the positive form of the binary options between existence and nonexistence). This is important in some counters to Godel's ontological argument, which assumes that existence is the positive condition - perhaps if we had a word-thought construct which assumed nonexistence to be the positive version (so, only this word exists and {zasti} does not), then the argument would work out in exactly the opposite way. This pair (existence/nonexistence) was chosen because there is nothing more fundemental and important to a thing than whether or not it exists. --- > This word is equivalent to {tolza'i}. However, there is no hint of it being negative or negated; in fact, it is a positive and affirmative predicate (think of nonexistemce as being the positive form of the binary options between existence and nonexistence). This is important in some counters to Godel's ontological argument, which assumes that existence is the positive condition - perhaps if we had a word-thought construct which assumed nonexistence to be the positive version (so, only this word exists and {zasti} does not), then the argument would work out in exactly the opposite way. This pair (existence/nonexistence) was chosen because there is nothing more fundemental and important to a thing than whether or not it exists. Given these considerations, I should instead say that {zasti} is {to'e} {feiksti}, rather than going with my original presentation. [...] 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 "feiksti" in the language "English". Differences: 5,5c5,5 < This word is equivalent to {tolza'i}. However, there is no hint of it being negative or negated; in fact, it is a positive and affirmative predicate (think of nonexistemce as being the positive form of the binary options between existence and nonexistence). This is important in some counters to Godel's ontological argument, which assumes that existence is the positive condition - perhaps if we had a word-thought construct which assumed nonexistence to be the positive version (so, only this word exists and {zasti} does not), then the argument would work out in exactly the opposite way. This pair (existence/nonexistence) was chosen because there is nothing more fundemental and important to a thing than whether or not it exists. --- > This word is equivalent to {tolza'i}. However, there is no hint of it being negative or negated; in fact, it is a positive and affirmative predicate (think of nonexistemce as being the positive form of the binary options between existence and nonexistence). This is important in some counters to Godel's ontological argument, which assumes that existence is the positive condition - perhaps if we had a word-thought construct which assumed nonexistence to be the positive version (so, only this word exists and {zasti} does not), then the argument would work out in exactly the opposite way. This pair (existence/nonexistence) was chosen because there is nothing more fundemental and important to a thing than whether or not it exists. Given these considerations, I should instead say that {zasti} is {to'e} {feiksti}, rather than going with my original presentation. Old Data: Definition: $x_$ does not exist/is not real/is not actual/is not reality/is fake for $x_2$ under metaphysics $x_3$; $x_1$ is a fakester/huxter (no intention of tricking, because it does not exist). Notes: This word is equivalent to {tolza'i}. However, there is no hint of it being negative or negated; in fact, it is a positive and affirmative predicate (think of nonexistemce as being the positive form of the binary options between existence and nonexistence). This is important in some counters to Godel's ontological argument, which assumes that existence is the positive condition - perhaps if we had a word-thought construct which assumed nonexistence to be the positive version (so, only this word exists and {zasti} does not), then the argument would work out in exactly the opposite way. This pair (existence/nonexistence) was chosen because there is nothing more fundemental and important to a thing than whether or not it exists. Jargon: Gloss Keywords: Word: nonexist, In Sense: Place Keywords: New Data: Definition: $x_$ does not exist/is not real/is not actual/is not reality/is fake for $x_2$ under metaphysics $x_3$; $x_1$ is a fakester/huxter (no intention of tricking, because it does not exist). Notes: This word is equivalent to {tolza'i}. However, there is no hint of it being negative or negated; in fact, it is a positive and affirmative predicate (think of nonexistemce as being the positive form of the binary options between existence and nonexistence). This is important in some counters to Godel's ontological argument, which assumes that existence is the positive condition - perhaps if we had a word-thought construct which assumed nonexistence to be the positive version (so, only this word exists and {zasti} does not), then the argument would work out in exactly the opposite way. This pair (existence/nonexistence) was chosen because there is nothing more fundemental and important to a thing than whether or not it exists. Given these considerations, I should instead say that {zasti} is {to'e} {feiksti}, rather than going with my original presentation. Jargon: Gloss Keywords: Word: nonexist, In Sense: Place Keywords: You can go to to see it.