Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of noras@cox.net designates 68.230.241.213 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.230.241.213;
Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20130717212954.031f11d0@cox.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:33:16 -0400
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
From: Nora LeChevalier <noras@cox.net>
Subject: Re: [lojban] mivzdacti
In-Reply-To: <1XTg1m0223xYy5501XTiP8>
References: <7431048.8HQ9emOxx4@caracal>
 <CAKOEKkQ-rZvHnruss9nJx+oLZyNYmiZsZZrus_0P395wQ7DQrA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOQ8VDU6PAYCba8-oxuquCgrg5XL_PRZdW4SomNqXXveJAk5Xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51E6B9C2.7070409@gmx.de>
 <51E6C139.3000000@gmx.de>
 <1XTg1m0223xYy5501XTiP8>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam_score: 1.1
X-Spam_score_int: 11
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:  At 03:27 PM 7/17/2013, tsani wrote: ... As for Gleki's remark,
    in order for an organism to be parasitic, must it necessarily *eat* its host?
    If we consider a tapeworm to be a parasite, then the answer is "no", because
    the tapeworm eats the host's food rather than the host proper. However, I
    have no suggestions as to how to reflect this in the lujvo. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (1.1 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
  1.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY         BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID             Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature

<html>
<body>
At 03:27 PM 7/17/2013, tsani wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">...<br>
As for Gleki's remark, in order for an organism to be parasitic, must it
necessarily *eat* its host? If we consider a tapeworm to be a parasite,
then the answer is &quot;no&quot;, because the tapeworm eats the host's
food rather than the host proper. However, I have no suggestions as to
how to reflect this in the lujvo. <br><br>
.i mi'e la tsani mu'o</blockquote><br>
How about xranyjolxabju (an ugly word, admittedly), which is [something1]
injures-and-inhabits [something2].<br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<hr>
ni'o mi'e noras. </body>
</html>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />