Subject: acka-research Digest V4 #161
From: [email-masked]
To: acka-research digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 00:00:05 -0400 (EDT)

acka-research Digest	Tuesday, August 31 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 161

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Olde Mink Found
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 03:23:42 -0400 (EDT)

Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
> 
> A German Dog(a.k.a. Dragon Mage, JT, etc.) has found the Olde Mink
> treasure.
> 
> I will still give a prize(but don't feel like burying a treasure for it)
> to anyone who can tell me whence "Olde Mink" originates.

It doesn't appear to originate from the treasure page nor thepe page....
um which treasure are we talking about?

????????
I hereby bury all my trinkets (-17, A Pat on The Back, Beware The
Forbidden
Fruit!, The HTML Standard Playtest Edition Eggplant and Hat Set 1, J. M.
Bear Is All My Fault, Klortho's Volcano, Sculpture 19, and The book of
life)
as a treasure.  I reveal the following portion of the map:

ZRBZE BLSAE BSRLX XHBPK ADOHG ZRBPC ESZYX LGBEK PLVQL DKECV ZKJKC DZRBW 
????????

K 2
confused

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: otzma?
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 03:23:50 -0400 (EDT)

JT wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Gavin Logan wrote:
> > Does anyone have an accurate record of how many otzma cards of each type
> > there are? I know I did, but then I discovered that it was slightly
> > errorful.
> 
> K 2 probably has the best record.  The Runemaker should.   K 2 has however
> some OC's that were destroyed (like paratroops) still listed.  IE, I
> really only have one OC (Map shard) not 2.

http://www.ackanomic.org/~k2/ei.html except that it fails to reveal
which are oc and which aren't :/

64 in total.

Arctic Explorer (1)

     r-attila the farce has 1 

Art Thief (let me guess repealed - Proposal 3905 along with All Agenda
Hats and Nemesis Eggplants are destroyed; I knew there was a reason I
didn't have mutton chops)

     Guy Fawkes has 1 

Foul Fowl (5)

     Blest Lax Monk Pal has 1 
     /dev/joe has 1 
     Rachel L Walmsley has 1 
     Mr. Lunatic Fringe has 1 
     Vynd has 1 

Go Fish (13)

     Treasure 194 has 2 
     Burn the Witch has 2 
     Chaos has 1 
     else...if has 1 
     Guy Fawkes has 1 
     K 2 has 1 
     Niccolo Flychuck has 1 
     Rachel L Walmsley has 1 
     rufus has 1 
     Studge has 1 
     Vynd has 1 

Map Shard (4)

     A German Dog has 1 
     r-attila the farce has 1 
     Treasure 194 has 1 
     ThinMan has 1 

Paratroop (repealed - Proposal 4300)

     /dev/joe has 1 
     A German Dog has 1 
     Niccolo Flychuck has 1 
     Studge has 1 
     Burn the Witch has 1 

Roulette Wheel (4)

     Emperor Ai! Pedrito! has 3 
     Treasury has 1 

Share My Expenses (9)

     Guy Fawkes has 2 
     r-attila the farce has 2 
     Blest Lax Monk Pal has 1 
     K 2 has 1 
     Slakko has 1 
     ThinMan has 1 
     Vynd has 1 

Share Your Income (11)

     Studge has 3 
     Emperor Ai! Pedrito! has 2 
     Alfvaen has 1 
     Blest Lax Monk Pal has 1 
     /dev/joe has 1 
     Fortunato has 1 
     Quoth the Raven has 1 
     Rachel L Walmsley has 1 

Shield (5)

     /dev/joe has 1 
     K 2 has 1 
     Slakko has 1 
     Studge has 1 
     Burn the Witch has 1 

Skeleton Key (5)

     Quoth the Raven has 3 
     Slakko has 1 
     Emperor Ai! Pedrito! has 1 

Tatical Retreat (repealed - Proposal 4300)

     Calvin N Hobbes has 1 
     /dev/joe has 1 
     K 2 has 1 
     Quoth the Raven has 1 
     Niccolo Flychuck has 1 
     r-attila the farce has 1 
     Robin Hood has 1 
     Slakko has 1 
     Mr. Lunatic Fringe has 1 
     Vynd has 1 

Truthseeker (7)

     K 2 has 1 
     Rachel L Walmsley has 1 
     Slakko has 1 
     Mr. Lunatic Fringe has 1 
     Studge has 1 
     ThinMan has 1 
     Burn the Witch has 1

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4344
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 03:23:54 -0400 (EDT)

David Scheidt wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> I take possesion of teh little lamb!
> 
> rurufzs

I give rufus all of my Ackadollars.

Is the little lamb still an entity BTW?

K 2
Okay so its research (newbies read this as: no meaningful actions can be
made on this list)

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 4330 accepted (Slakko)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 03:24:02 -0400 (EDT)

>  For each kaa of land owned by a player beyond the first, that player
>  receives A$15.

E. Map Harfer?

Help!

K 2

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Help the harfers - iycftoyhbpaftl!
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 03:24:07 -0400 (EDT)

Its sooo much easier to harf things when all the information needed is
present in the message. Take the recent duel between Quoth and Studge.
It was good (and in fact required in this case) that the point
transferrals that occurred from the duel were specified (I didn't have
to check the rules :-), the names were a little more difficult to figure
out and required recourse to the challenge messages ugh. The first
search turned up Alfvaen's challenge to phoebes wisdom back in the
government scam (contained Quoth, Studge and challenge)
 
> QtR gains 6 points and a Brie

Quoth would've been better

> RLW gains 3 points

Rachel is infinitely better than a TLA. given the length of time e had
this name rice, hubert or even Slathgor would have been better.

> RtF loses 3 points

for a while I did entertained the idea that this was rAtF but given the
previous I thought maybe Rachel the Fool? defiantly a case for a LFTA.

> Stu dge loses 6 points and a Brie.

K 2

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4331 accepted
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 03:24:14 -0400 (EDT)

[email-masked] wrote:

>  The Brass Monkey is a great admirer of passive contemplation.  Because of
>  this, if the Passive Contemplator casts a nonzero vote on a proposal whose
>  number ends in 00, the Brass Monkey casts a vote with an absolute value of
>  60 with the same sign as that of the Passive Contemplator's vote.

At the moment Robert Sevin is the Passive Contemplator and Third Cat -
although CnH could be come the Passive Contemplator anytime e chooses
:-)

K 2

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Red Mao Gang
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 03:24:20 -0400 (EDT)

Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
> 
> Did I miss something?  If I look at my records and stuff correctly, the
> RBBT had been used less than 3 weeks prior to the attempted use on JT, and
> thus fixing...ELK? still had it.  I am confused.

Last use: 11 Aug 1999 00:33:59
so fixing...ELK? can use it from 25 Aug to 31 Aug without interference.

Had this not ben so Hubert or Whatever eir name is (I dare you) would
have still had it with a weeks grace to use it properly :-)

K 2

> 
> -- Emperor Ai! Pedrito! B(Scam)
> DeeJay * Dungeon Master * Herald * Rule-Harfer
>  Crazy French-Scotsman * Student (Scamology)

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Olde Mink Found
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 03:41:01 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, K 2 wrote:
> It doesn't appear to originate from the treasure page nor thepe page....
> um which treasure are we talking about?
> 
> ????????
> I hereby bury all my trinkets (-17, A Pat on The Back, Beware The
> Forbidden
> Fruit!, The HTML Standard Playtest Edition Eggplant and Hat Set 1, J. M.
> Bear Is All My Fault, Klortho's Volcano, Sculpture 19, and The book of
> life)
> as a treasure.  I reveal the following portion of the map:
> 
> ZRBZE BLSAE BSRLX XHBPK ADOHG ZRBPC ESZYX LGBEK PLVQL DKECV ZKJKC DZRBW 
> ????????

It was a second treasure in that same message.

--JT

-- 
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: otzma?
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 03:43:43 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, K 2 wrote:
> Arctic Explorer (1)
> 
>      r-attila the farce has 1 
> 
> Art Thief (let me guess repealed - Proposal 3905 along with All Agenda
> Hats and Nemesis Eggplants are destroyed; I knew there was a reason I
> didn't have mutton chops)

I then recreated all the agenda hats and eggplants in the proposal that
reinstantiated them into the rules, so you do in fact have mutton chops.

> Paratroop (repealed - Proposal 4300)
> 
>      /dev/joe has 1 
>      A German Dog has 1 
>      Niccolo Flychuck has 1 
>      Studge has 1 
>      Burn the Witch has 1 

These were all destroyed with either that proposal or one slightly later
I'm fairly sure.

> Tatical Retreat (repealed - Proposal 4300)
> 
>      Calvin N Hobbes has 1 
>      /dev/joe has 1 
>      K 2 has 1 
>      Quoth the Raven has 1 
>      Niccolo Flychuck has 1 
>      r-attila the farce has 1 
>      Robin Hood has 1 
>      Slakko has 1 
>      Mr. Lunatic Fringe has 1 
>      Vynd has 1 

I believe these were destroyed at the same time.

--JT

-- 
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4344
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 03:44:40 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, K 2 wrote:
> David Scheidt wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 [email-masked] wrote:
> > 
> > I take possesion of teh little lamb!
> > 
> > rurufzs
> 
> I give rufus all of my Ackadollars.
> 
> Is the little lamb still an entity BTW?

As of the set of rules I have (about a week out of date, rule 7-2-4 still
defines the lamb)

--JT

-- 
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Player name archive?
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 04:28:58 -0400 (EDT)

Rachel L Walmsley wrote:

> Ah, I apparently didn't make myself clear enough. I can't access the
> archive of past player names required for ensuring that nobody tries to
> take a name that has been used previously. The link points to
> http://www.ackanomic.org/~rufus/acka/playerarch.html but that generates
> a 404 error message. Do you have a copy of this file?

Did this get resolved? It seems I too am now in a position that I need
this file as well.

K 2

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: otzma?
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 04:40:03 -0400 (EDT)

JT wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, K 2 wrote:
> > Arctic Explorer (1)
> >
> >      r-attila the farce has 1
> >
> > Art Thief (let me guess repealed - Proposal 3905 along with All Agenda
> > Hats and Nemesis Eggplants are destroyed; I knew there was a reason I
> > didn't have mutton chops)
> 
> I then recreated all the agenda hats and eggplants in the proposal that
> reinstantiated them into the rules, so you do in fact have mutton chops.
> 

Now that you mention it I remember that proposal now as well.

I reseat mutton chops on my head.

K 2

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4352
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 12:55:55 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 [email-masked] wrote:
> Proposal 4352
> Patience
> else...if
> Due: Tue Sep  7 11:12:56 1999
> Sphere: Tocpe
> 
> 	{{[With certain proposals, especially those effecting the
> Promoter/Tabulator, it's helpful and polite to give the affected officer a
> little time to implement the changes.  This creates a simple method to do
> that.]}}
> 	Create rule 2-2-9, "Delayed Proposals" with the following WAIT
> delimited text.
> WAIT
> 	If, earlier than any rule changes, a proposal contains a sentence
> of the form "This proposal delays for <player list>." or "The proposals
> delays up to <time> for <player list>.", where <time> is replaced by a unit
> of time and <player list> is replaced by the name of one or more Active
> players or Offices, then the proposal is a Delayed proposal.
> 	When a Delayed proposal is accepted, no effects are generated
> immediately.  All changes made by the proposal will occur as soon as either
> <time> has passed since the proposal's acceptance, or the holder of each
> office in <player list> and the player able to assume each of the names in
> <player list> has publicly stated that they are ready for the proposal to
> occur.
> WAIT

I'm going to be voting against this for a couple of reasons and want to
share them publically so that else...if can address them if he chooses.

a) This makes it very easy for a player to block a proposals acceptance
just by never stating that they are ready.  (only in the case with no time
limit)
b) It makes no provision for what occurs if the office named in a list is
repealed or goes away or changes hands during the time of this proposal.
(only in the case with no time limit)

--JT

-- 
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

From: Henry Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4352
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:08:57 -0400 (EDT)

>a) This makes it very easy for a player to block a proposals acceptance
>just by never stating that they are ready.  (only in the case with no time
>limit)
	The time this is most likely to be used is when an officer needs to
implement something and is being given a little time.  Even if an officer
dislikes a proposal, I find it highly unlikely that an officer would abuse
this power.  Besides, as I see it, that's the risk you take if you don't
assign a time limit.  The only reason I included the version without the
time limit at all was because I thought players might sometimes forget to
include it and wanted to make the rule flexible enough to handle that.

>b) It makes no provision for what occurs if the office named in a list is
>repealed or goes away or changes hands during the time of this proposal.
>(only in the case with no time limit)
	If the office changes hands then the new one needs to approve it
(that's why <player list> can include officers and not just players).  I
concede that there is no handling of when an officer is repealed, but I
can't imagine why an officer would be repealed without the delayed proposal
becoming irrelevant as well.

	I will also reiterate my request that players not vote against
proposals over problems like this.  The cases you bring up are unlikely and
obscure; if this passes can be fixed afterwords.

--
-Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and
enjoy it.
		-Logan Pearsall Smith

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4349
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 14:50:52 -0400 (EDT)

Just some general comments cause I'm in that sort of mood. Cool idea btw
:-)

[email-masked] wrote:

> Append the following quoted text, "Order of the Hyperactive Aardvark
> (HA)", to Rule 4-10 where appropriate.

better to say where appropriate is
 
--

This is exactly the situation CFJ 621 was intended to address, but
didn't due to a technicality :/

The creation of R3-99 and R4-10-2 are one time effects of this proposal
and are applied in order. Thus R3-99 is created followed by R4-10-2
which is fine - but when does R3-99 take effect? - before or after
R4-10-2 is created?

Given that the game state is defined by the rules(1) - it seems most
logical that R3-99 will take effect immediatly upon insertion into the
rule set and thus before R4-10-2 is inserted. Given that is the case:

> Create rule 3-99 with the following text delimited by OLDER_FIXUP
> 
>    OLDER_FIXUP
> 
> All players (on-ice, vacationing and active) immediately recieve ranks
> in the Order of the Hyperactive Aardvark based on the proposals which
> they submitted during their first three months as a player of Ackanomic.

This would prolly grant everyone, who had submitted a porposal during
eir first three months, Medalist in OHA - not what was intended.
Alternativly it might grant them randomly or not at all - without
R4-10-2 its hard to say what about the proposals they submitted during
the first three months serves as the basis of recieving rank.

> This clause takes precedence over all rules with which it conflicts,
> most especially rule 4.
> 
> After all players have recieved the ranks in the Order of the
> Hyperactive Aardvark granted by this rule, this rule repeals itself.

Whether this rule manages to grant ranks in OHA or not, all players will
have recieved those ranks which this rule has descided to give em so it
will repeal itself straight away. 

> Create a new Rule 4-10-2 named The Hyperactive Aardvark with the
> following SCARED_ANTS-delimited text:
> 
> SCARED_ANTS
> 
> SCARED_ANTS

(1) Rule 1: All players must always abide by all the rules then in
effect, in the form in which they are then in effect, and interpreted in
accordance with current game custom.

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4334 rejected
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 14:59:02 -0400 (EDT)

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal 4334
> 
> Acceptance Index: -111.0: proposal rejected
> 
> Votes to reject:
>   Emperor Ai! Pedrito! -200    -100 ==> 4304
> 

Ouch

K 2

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4334 rejected
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:42:19 -0400 (EDT)

David Scheidt wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, K 2 wrote:
> 
> > [email-masked] wrote:
> > >
> > > Proposal 4334
> > >
> > > Acceptance Index: -111.0: proposal rejected
> > >
> > > Votes to reject:
> > >   Emperor Ai! Pedrito! -200    -100 ==> 4304
> > >
> >
> > Ouch
> 
> It's personal, don't worry.
> 
> rufus

Oh boy that's a relief - for a moment I thought it was something wrong
with the proposal.

K 2

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

From: "Gavin Logan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: otzma?
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:44:35 -0400 (EDT)

>Share Your Income (11)
>
>     Studge has 3
>     Emperor Ai! Pedrito! has 2
>     Alfvaen has 1
>     Blest Lax Monk Pal has 1
>     /dev/joe has 1
>     Fortunato has 1
>     Quoth the Raven has 1
>     Rachel L Walmsley has 1
>

There can be only 10 Share Your Income cards. Someone has made an error. My
money's on the speaker.

Cthulhu
(speaker)

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

From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4334 rejected
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:47:23 -0400 (EDT)

At 02:59 PM 8/31/99 -0400, you wrote:
>[email-masked] wrote:
>> 
>> Proposal 4334
>> 
>> Acceptance Index: -111.0: proposal rejected
>> 
>> Votes to reject:
>>   Emperor Ai! Pedrito! -200    -100 ==> 4304
>> 
>
>Ouch
>
>K 2
> 

Proposal 4328

Acceptance Index: -249.0: proposal rejected

Votes to reject:
  K 2                  -140    -40  ==> 723

If you want to deny me a cheese, then I want to deny you a hat.

-- Emperor Ai! Pedrito! B(Scam)
DeeJay * Dungeon Master * Herald * Rule-Harfer
 Crazy French-Scotsman * Student (Scamology)

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

From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4334 rejected
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:48:53 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:

> 
> Acceptance Index: -249.0: proposal rejected
> 
> Votes to reject:
>   K 2                  -140    -40  ==> 723
> 
> If you want to deny me a cheese, then I want to deny you a hat.
> 

What do CACAHEADS get denied them?!?

IB
can't hardly wait til we get there.

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

From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4352
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 22:26:04 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, JT wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 [email-masked] wrote:
> > Proposal 4352
> > Patience
> > else...if
> > Due: Tue Sep  7 11:12:56 1999
> > Sphere: Tocpe
> > 
> > 	{{[With certain proposals, especially those effecting the
> > Promoter/Tabulator, it's helpful and polite to give the affected officer a
> > little time to implement the changes.  This creates a simple method to do
> > that.]}}
> > 	Create rule 2-2-9, "Delayed Proposals" with the following WAIT
> > delimited text.
> > WAIT
> > 	If, earlier than any rule changes, a proposal contains a sentence
> > of the form "This proposal delays for <player list>." or "The proposals
> > delays up to <time> for <player list>.", where <time> is replaced by a unit
> > of time and <player list> is replaced by the name of one or more Active
> > players or Offices, then the proposal is a Delayed proposal.
> > 	When a Delayed proposal is accepted, no effects are generated
> > immediately.  All changes made by the proposal will occur as soon as either
> > <time> has passed since the proposal's acceptance, or the holder of each
> > office in <player list> and the player able to assume each of the names in
> > <player list> has publicly stated that they are ready for the proposal to
> > occur.
> > WAIT
> 
> I'm going to be voting against this for a couple of reasons and want to
> share them publically so that else...if can address them if he chooses.
> 
> a) This makes it very easy for a player to block a proposals acceptance
> just by never stating that they are ready.  (only in the case with no time
> limit)

I am not particularly concerned by this. As else...if has said, this
requires someone to be pretty darn malicious, and in my experience that
rarely happens here. If someone is worried this might happen to their
proposal, they could just be sure to add a time limit.

One thing that does give me (some) pause is the possibility that a player
or players could use this to hold rules "hostage" to a certain extent.
Most likely this would simply occur if someone was reluctant or unable to
prepare for the proposal quickly, effectively preventing further changes
to the rules in question because the delayed proposal would override them.
There is also some possiblityinteresting possiblities for scamming here.

If Acka's ever-vigilant players weren't paying quite enough attention,
they could pass a delayed proposal to modify one thing only to see it
modify something else entirely after a non-delayed proposal did some
renumbering or rewording.

> b) It makes no provision for what occurs if the office named in a list is
> repealed or goes away or changes hands during the time of this proposal.
> (only in the case with no time limit)
> 
> --JT

This is only partially true, I think. This proposal says that somehting is
a delayed proposal only if the player list consists of active players
and/or Offices. So if someone on the list ceased to be an active player,
the proposal would not be delayed. Likewise, if it listed an office that
was repealed, it wouldn't be delayed anymore either. So far as offices
changing hands goes, I don't see why that is a problem here.

On the other hand, once a delayed proposal has been passed there could be
problems such as JT has described. The part of the rule which governs the
un-delaying of a delayed proposal doesn't seem to care if the names and
offices in the player list are valid. So if someone left or an office was
repealed, the proposal would remain delayed.

Perhaps the easiet way out of all of this is to stipulate a default time
limit? One that would be overridden by any time actually given in the
proposal, but would otherwise cut off the waiting period at... a week?

While were discussing this proposal, it occurs to me that it would not
only delay the effects of dealyed proposals themselves, but might also
delay their scoring, etc. That would be a little weird, although I'm not
sure if it would cause any real problems.

Vynd

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

From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4352
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 22:46:23 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> 
>
>

Yikes. Please excuse my weird typos and extra words.

Vynd, real life editor and lousy typist

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

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4352
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 22:55:16 -0400 (EDT)

>Vynd, real life editor

So YOU'RE the one! Let me tell you, you're doing a damn sloppy job! I mean,
not only was the initial geocentric setup so badly flawed that you had to
shove in gravity to make some sense of it all, you couldn't even get gravity
right, and had to patch it up with relativity!

> and lousy typist

I'm not surprised! Look at that whole Elvis thing! If you can't even edit
out the reappearances of a fat dead guy, it's no wonder you have trouble
with keyboards!

BLMP.

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

End of acka-research Digest V4 #161
***********************************