Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #36
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest    Friday, April 11 1997    Volume 02 : Number 036

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 02:07:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Puritanical MWG

> try to find a rational explanation for the phenomona.  Since I find
> informatation to be a Platonic quantity, and art a medium of information
> delivery, I find art A can be objectively better than art B.  I still
> admit, however, that this does boil down to a faith anchor, thus agree
	The theory of information content as quality would give a critic 
an excuse to condemn triteness, cliche, needless redundancy (as in 
many nursery rhymes)... but what about sentimentality?  coldness?  Is 
there a lack of information there?  Very often I will be enthusiastic 
about a work (whether prose, film, song, art-- whatever) because it seems 
"finely crafted".  I guess that would be represented, in your model, as 
personal interest, rather than any extra information or objective 
superiority.  How sad.  :o)

	I really didn't like the most recent Romeo and Juliet movie.  I
think this theory gives me a new excuse to cut it down:  the movie is
indeed no more than a bunch of MTV out-takes (with minimal information
content) cut in with Shakespeare's dialogue (which has meaning, but
nothing new.)

- -- Mohammed
Mind-Wasting Gizz Valve Open

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:58:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 370 (fnord)

>So in other words, the earth is flat was at one time 'truth'.  Now the
>'truth' is that it is impossible to exceed the speed of light.  That
>sort of 'truth' does not sit well with a Platonist like me.  This is 
>another difference.  There is a 'true' shape of the earth, we may or may
>not have discovered it yet.

  No there isn't, at least not if the premise of relativity is correct.
(In some frames of reference, the Earth is flat, in some it's round...)

- -Red Barn

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:00:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1912

>Godel's Theorem is wrong.  Acka is perfect.  Claiming otherwise is
>Treason.

  Wahaha!!!  (What if I thought flatness wasn't perfection?)

- -Red Barn

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:13:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TM& NSBwG

>Yeah, but that's a lot harder to show! ;) I didn't want to have to do that
>work.  I was hoping that Mohammed would come up with an explicitly
>self-referential system.  That saves me the trouble of showing how to
>"encode" self-referential statements in seemingly nonselfreferential
>systems.

  I'd say Acka is explicitly self-referential by now.  Or how about the
system consisting of the statment "This statement is false."?

- -Red Barn

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:58:54 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P1902 accepted (Ammending Swingers' Weight)

> Proposal 1902
> Ammending Swingers' Weight
> Yes:  4    No:  1     Present:  7   ...Proposal accepted.

> YES votes:
>         FiBOnacCi

> Active players who did not vote:
>         ThinMan

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:25:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1902 accepted (Ammending Swingers' Weight)

> > YES votes:
> >         FiBOnacCi
> > Active players who did not vote:
> >         ThinMan
	*grin*  Weird.

- -- Mohammed

------------------------------

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #36
***************************************