Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #244
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest     Wednesday, September 18 1996     Volume 01 : Number 244

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 20:03:54 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 286 Verdict

CFJ 286 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 286
  Subject: Gadget Precedence Paradox
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Techno (selected Sep 15, 1996, 10:32h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The legality of the owner of the Green Tomato gadget (made from the
Blueprint for a Green Tomato, described below), should such things exist,
trading that gadget after the owner of a Scroll of Crumble has attempted
to destroy that particular Green Tomato gadget via the Scroll of Crumble,
cannot be determined with finality.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Now that I have a little more time, digging through the problems gadgets
and blueprints have, once again (the pseudo-rule problem).  Also, more
incentive to vote YES and bring that Chartreuse Goose on-line!  I believe
this one is pretty solid however.

Sorry for the Byzantine statement, but there are a few legal requirements
of R 589 and R 219 to comply with.  A better statement might have been:
"There exists a paradox in Gadget precedence", and that is the gist of
this paradox CFJ claim; that if two gadgets have conflicting behaviour
or specifications, there is no way to determine with finality which
specification shall hold sway.  Trust me, that is what the statement
says :).

The Blueprint for a Green Tomato:

The Green Tomato is indestructable.  Its owner may use the title "Willy
Nilly" by publically announcing that they are doing so. This is the last
sentence of the Blueprint for a Green Tomato.

>From the Blueprint archive, the Blueprint for a Scroll of Crumble:

> The owner of a Scroll of Crumble may Read it by announcing its text
> (which the player may make up) publicly. Upon doing so that player must
> indicate some existing gadget. That gadget is then destroyed. If the
> gadget was indestructible, three points are deducted from the score of
> the Scroll of Crumble's owner. Lastly, if the Scroll of Crumble still
> exists, it is destroyed, too.

The Green Tomato makes explicit that it is indestructable.  The Scroll
of Crumble makes explicit that it destroys the target gadget (Green
Tomato).  Which holds precedence?  Is it destroyed?  It cannot be
determined with finality, therefore we do not know if the owner retains
the Green Tomato, therefore its tradability cannot be determined with
finality.

I note that the Scroll of Crumble specifies a penalty for destroying an
indestructable gadget, but that sentence does not explicitly say in
such case that the target will not be destroyed; in fact, it implies the
opposite with the word "was" when referring to the [alledgedly] destroyed
gadget.  No way out there.

In other notes, I note that the Green Tomato is a hypothetical Blueprint.
I have some question about doing that, but it is the exact same case as
the hypothetical contract in CFJ 256.

I have submitted a proposal to fix this problem, for what it is worth.

Upon a verdict of TRUE which is not appealed, the initiator wins the
cycle in accordance with R 219.

Techno's Reasoning:

I had originally wanted do judge it as invalid because it deals with
a rethorical situation.

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 19:28:20 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 285 Verdict 

Guy,

>Your Judgment appears to rest mainly on R215, my action mainly on R115.
>If they conflict, shouldn't R115 take precedence?

I have several comments in about that.

(1) This is not a precedence issue.  Precedence applies to conflicting
    statements in the rules, not to disagreements about the interpretation
    of the rules.

(2) R115 does not enter the picture.  Making bids in an auction and
    the question of which bids are legal are regulated by R 1023, therefore
    R 115 does not apply.

(3) All judgements rest on R 215, and they are made binding by the
    interpretation clause of R 101.  The method by which I arrived
    at my judgement is provided for by R 215, but the actual basis is
    game custom as established by (a) previous auctions and (b) standard
    English language usage.

I am open to continued discussion about this if you are interested, either
privately or publicly.  I'm certainly not trying to "get" you in any way;
my Judgement is my best effort at interpreting the rules in this case.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 19:48:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Scores

Lots of scoring the last few days with so many proposal results coming in.
breadbox was gnome buddy until after P1197, when his score rose to -10;
Geezer also had a score of -10 so Pascal became the gnome buddy with a
score of -5.  After P1199 breadbox scored some more points so Geezer became
gnome buddy.  Neither Pascal nor Geezer voted in recent history; the gnome
has abstained on proposals since 1198.

Recent scoring history, non-proposal-result based:

Sep 14 04:06 EDT: +15 Habeous Corpus: Whamiol (Sam Peterson)
Sep 14 12:32 EDT: -2 Guy Fawkes: retracting p1225
Sep 14 15:18 EDT: -2 /dev/joe: retracting p1242
Sep 15 10:55 EDT: -3 Mellon: Carelessly losing Phoebe's matchbox
Sep 15 11:09 EDT: -10 Brinjal: Failed to respond to CFJ 282
Sep 15 21:03 EDT: -4 Malenkai: Retract P 1226 & 1227

I don't have a penalty recorded yet for the second appeal of CFJ 269.

Weird proposal scoring:

P1195 was short.
P1201 was modest.
Malenkai scored extra points for the potato on proposals 1198, 1199,
1200, 1202, 1203, and 1204; 1204 was also modest.

I believe these are the current scores:

Score   Ackanomic Name   Status  Real Name
- -----   --------------      ---  -------------
227     Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall)
183     /dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis)
103     Habeous Corpus       A   (Ed Graham)
60      Techno               A   (Jerome Herrman)
58      Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck)
57      Guy Fawkes           A   (Robert Shimmin)
40      IdiotBoy             A   (Matt Miller)
35      this is not a name   A   (Mike Epstein)
29      Robin Hood           A   (R Shaw)
18      Bash                 A   (Erez Bashan)
15      Bascule              I   (Matt Black)
15      Wayne                A   (Wayne Sheppard)
12      mr cwm               A   (Eric Murray)
11      ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger)
6       fnord                A   (Michael Thomas)
6       Brinjal              A   (Simon Clarke)
4       snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley)
0       Calvin N Hobbes      A   (Thierry Joffrain)
0       fon                  I   (Adrian Smith)
0       skinny               N   (Shlomi Bernthal)
0       Robert Sevin         I   (Mitchell Harding)
0       "Tim"                N   (Tim Carter)
0       Uncle Sam            N   (Sam Peterson)
- -5      Pascal               V   (Jason Reed)
- -7      breadbox             A   (Brian Raiter)
- -10     Geezer               I   (David Chapman)

Status:
A=Active, N=New, V=Vacationing, IV=Involuntary Vacation, I=On Ice, D=Dead

The scores at the end of the bond cycle yesterday include the proposal
scoring through P1199, and all other scoring that has occurred.

Monday, Sep 16, 12:00 EDT 1996 scores:

Score   Ackanomic Name   Status  Real Name
- -----   --------------      ---  -------------
186     Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall)
177     /dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis)
97      Habeous Corpus       A   (Ed Graham)
52      Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck)
49      Guy Fawkes           A   (Robert Shimmin)
48      Techno               A   (Jerome Herrman)
35      this is not a name   A   (Mike Epstein)
28      IdiotBoy             A   (Matt Miller)
20      Robin Hood           A   (R Shaw)
15      Bascule              I   (Matt Black)
12      Bash                 A   (Erez Bashan)
12      Wayne                A   (Wayne Sheppard)
11      ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger)
9       mr cwm               A   (Eric Murray)
6       fnord                A   (Michael Thomas)
3       Brinjal              A   (Simon Clarke)
1       snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley)
0       Calvin N Hobbes      A   (Thierry Joffrain)
0       fon                  I   (Adrian Smith)
0       skinny               N   (Shlomi Bernthal)
0       Robert Sevin         I   (Mitchell Harding)
0       "Tim"                N   (Tim Carter)
0       Uncle Sam            N   (Sam Peterson)
- -5      Pascal               V   (Jason Reed)
- -7      breadbox             A   (Brian Raiter)
- -10     Geezer               I   (David Chapman)

/dev/joe
Scorekeeper

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 19:53:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 285 Verdict

On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > I agree with Thiman's verdict, but not with his reasoning. If we elaborate
> > on Guy Fawkes' reasoning, if H is the highest bid,then Guy's bid is H+1.
> > H+1 is greater than H, which makes that the highest bid, so
> > instantaneously ( sp?), H gets the value that prevsiouly was H+1, which
> > makes Guy's bid (H+1)+1 and so on ad infinitum, there fore I conclude that
> > Guy Fawkes bid oo (that's supposed to be infinity), which is clearly
> > greater than the number of A$ he has, and that makes his bid invalid.

Although I'm more than prepared to let the whole matter drop, Niccolo, 
for the record, H was the highest bid cast by a player other than Guy Fawkes.

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 19:57:07 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 285 Verdict

On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Of course. The difference is, all the other bids represented FIXED
> values. The necessity of this restriction is pretty obvious when you
> consider the situation where more than one person submits "H+1" bids.

I looked over that case, and decided that in the case of multiple H+1 
bids (even though as I have said, I'm more than willing to let the matter 
drop), the two would probably make each other undefinable, and therefore 
invalid, cancelling each other (this would also happen in the case of H+1 
vs. G+2).  As long as only one algebraic bid exists, I still believe it 
is definable and valid.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 21:15:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBond Trader's Page

IdiotBoy wrote:
> 
> Such a page does now exist.

> http://slack.net/~idiot/acka/

I like the page.  You have plenty of space; why not record a history
of every trade.

Another cool touch might be a javascript ticker tape of recent trades,
or bid/asked, just for color.

In any case, I would petition the web-harfer to put a link to the page
somewhere near the financial links.

Malenkai
Bond and Prosthetic Forehead trader

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 20:24:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Underworld Application

On Tue, 17 Sep 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> This is a public invitation to the following players to make 
> application to the Underworld.
> 
> 
> UncleSam
> skinny
> Tim Carter (haven't seen a Acka name for you yet)
> 
> Techno
> "Don't learn the tricks of the trade, learn the trade."

Don't sell your souls (and more importantly, your votes).  Power grows 
stale where there is no FUN.

Guy Fawkes
:)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)

yet another excuse for smiley conservation

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 21:34:36 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Bascule??

Did Bascule ever officially remove himself from vacation?  Registrar?

If not, then ThinMan should be fined A$1 for CFJ 269.

Malenkai
randomly losing track of random things

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 22:02:54 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: For Sale !

I offer the following Prosthetic Forehead, from my collection, for sale
to the highest bidder.  Minimum bid: A$1.  Maximum bid: A$1000.  Habeous
Corpus may be interested, being the owner of a Vending Machine:

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      It is solid gold; some appraisers have mentioned a value of A$500
for the headpiece. It simply has an advertisement etched in the front of it: 

            For Sale!! Cheap!! 
            Prosthetic Foreheads for only A$4!
            The Cheapest anywhere in the land!
            There is an endless supply and an endless variety available for 
Purchase! 
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Malenkai
liqidating headwear inventory

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 22:22:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBond Trader's Page

On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> I like the page.  You have plenty of space; why not record a history
> of every trade.
> 
If ThinMan could forward me a copy of his log of transactions, I'll get
right on it.  (The switching mail accts caused me to hastily delete my
backlog of messages)

> Another cool touch might be a javascript ticker tape of recent trades,
> or bid/asked, just for color.
> 
Look, everybody, I'm doing cross platform development!  No problems with
this either, is javascript the best way to implement this for maximum
audience?

> In any case, I would petition the web-harfer to put a link to the page
> somewhere near the financial links.
> 
On my to-do list.

> Malenkai
> Bond and Prosthetic Forehead trader
> 
If you're a bond trader:  send me some info for my page!

IB
- --
IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 18:34:39 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: PFUncleSam? 

>At 04:50 PM 9/17/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Sam Peterson wrote:
>>
>>> IdiotBoy
>>>
>>> What would be the current value of my PF bonds as they are just going public
>>> as of today?
>>>
>>> Uncle Sam
>>>
>>
>>Thanks for choosing the authority on PFBonds for your quote.  Readers of my
>>Hot Tips newsletter have already benfited from my reasoning wrt your IPO.
>>End of shameless plug.
>>
>>As I am sure you know, your bonds are very untested.  This equates to high
>>risk for investors. High risk implys high potential yields and low prices.
>>I will make an official bid of A$30 for 50 PFUncle.
>
>Right now I am asking A$1 for each PFUncle.
>
>Uncle Sam

If no one has snatched them all up yet, I will by as many PFUncleSam as
Uncle Sam has left for A$1 a piece.

frozenwaterdiety

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
IdiotBoy can give you more "Bang For The Buck"when it comes to matters
financial becuase he does not just follow the trends, he creates them!  Ask
IdiotBoy for a quote on your bonds today, or subscribe to the Hot TIps
newsletter for the latest word on everything financial!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 18:34:42 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Gumball Manipulation 

Firstly, I would like to Bonk the Gnome over the head with my electronic
potato.  Then, I think I'll feed the gumball to Malenkai's Little Lamb.

frozenwaterdirty

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 18:34:36 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1247 

>Proposal 1247 - Tue Sep 17 12:38:49 EDT 1996
>No more Paradox Wins.
>Techno  (Jerome Herrman)
>
>Repeal rule 219/0

I intended to propose the same thing, but I was waiting to see the results
on the Chartruse Goose before proposing it.  If the goose fails, I will
vote es on this.  If it passes I will vote no

me

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
IdiotBoy can give you more "Bang For The Buck"when it comes to matters
financial becuase he does not just follow the trends, he creates them!  Ask
IdiotBoy for a quote on your bonds today, or subscribe to the Hot TIps
newsletter for the latest word on everything financial!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 18:39:30 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBond Trader's Page 

>Look, everybody, I'm doing cross platform development!  No problems with
>this either, is javascript the best way to implement this for maximum
>audience?

javascript works with both Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer.  On
other browsers, nothing shows up, but it doesn't cause a problem.  If you
like I can forward you a ticker script to add to your HTML.

I used to have it on the ambassador's page, but some people were offended
by it (I won't name names, malenkai :)

frozenwaterdiety
thinking of reintroducing the dirty word :)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
IdiotBoy can give you more "Bang For The Buck"when it comes to matters
financial becuase he does not just follow the trends, he creates them!  Ask
IdiotBoy for a quote on your bonds today, or subscribe to the Hot TIps
newsletter for the latest word on everything financial!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 22:42:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Gumball Manipulation

On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:

> Firstly, I would like to Bonk the Gnome over the head with my electronic
> potato.  Then, I think I'll feed the gumball to Malenkai's Little Lamb.
> 
> frozenwaterdirty
> 
> 
I would like to thank frozenwaterdiety for NOT including an ad for my
services in this message of questinable legality.

Where's that Steel FLea Gazette, anyhoo?

IdiotBoy
- --
IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 22:41:05 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1247

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> >Proposal 1247 - Tue Sep 17 12:38:49 EDT 1996
> >No more Paradox Wins.
> >Techno  (Jerome Herrman)
> >
> >Repeal rule 219/0
> 
> I intended to propose the same thing, but I was waiting to see the results
> on the Chartruse Goose before proposing it.  If the goose fails, I will
> vote es on this.  If it passes I will vote no

Gotta go with the Goose.  Paradox CFJs are fun.  The Goose adds color
to frivolous ones.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 22:42:54 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBond Trader's Page

Phil Ackley wrote:

> I used to have it on the ambassador's page, but some people were offended
> by it (I won't name names, malenkai :)

I wasn't offended :).  As I recall, we were in some bitter campaign for
some office.  In any case, I was having fun at your expense.  In the
case of IdiotBoy's page, it is not associated with an official office,
therefore it is a different situation.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 19:14:06 -0800 (AKDT)
From: "Phillip R. Ackley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBond Trader's Page

On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> > I used to have it on the ambassador's page, but some people were offended
> > by it (I won't name names, malenkai :)
> 
> I wasn't offended :).  As I recall, we were in some bitter campaign for
> some office.  In any case, I was having fun at your expense.  In the
> case of IdiotBoy's page, it is not associated with an official office,
> therefore it is a different situation.
> 
> Malenkai

Oh, I know.  I remember it as being not really a problem in the first 
place.  I think it was an election for senate (me versus ThinMan, or 
possibly CSRR me versus you) In any event, I was never really offended by 
the fact that you wanted it removed, and I know you weren't really 
offended by the ad.

snowgod
reminising

* * * * * *
IdiotBoy - The only PF Bond trader who is dumber than a box of hammers
* * * * * * 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 23:31:51 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 290 (mr cwm)

mr cwm has been chosen, and has 3 days to accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 290
  Subject: Timing is everything
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: mr cwm (selected Sep 17, 1996, 23:34h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

The cycle or game ends at the exact moment the Speaker lawfully 
announces the Fat Lady is singing in accordance with R 790.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

In this reasoning, the word cycle should be construed to mean 'cycle
or game', where appropriate.

This has never been clarified to my satisfaction.  I realise game custom
indicates that the cycle ends when the event that makes someone a winner
occurs, but CFJ 280 establishes that game custom can be superceeded by
new game custom, if new thought or fact comes to light.  While I don't
overly much care, I'd like this clarified.  I do believe the statement
issued for judgement is true, however, and will make that case for the
judge to pick at.

It seems that the cycle can end at one of the following three times:

1) when it is publically knowable that a winning event occurred.  In
our rules, that would be when a magic number score is publically knowable,
or 4 days after the CotC announces a TRUE verdict on a R 219 CFJ.

2) when the appropriate officer announces a winning condition (+ any
mandated waiting period).  In our rules, the appropriate officers would
be Scorekeeper (R 422) and CotC (R 219).

3) When the Speaker announces the Fat Lady is singing, after the occurance
of an event in 1) or 2).

Our current game custom indicates 1), 2) is out, IMO, and 3) is correct.
Even if this CFJ is judged FALSE, I ask the judge to clarify this (I wish
we had troolean (is that a word?) CFJs).

The question is, when does the cycle end.  R 666 gives us a list of things
to do when a winner is declared, but does not explicitly say when the
cycle ends.  The closest is item k), "The game cycle number is incremented."

I think common sense indicates that is when the cycle ends, on the 
"execution" of step k), which would occur at the same instant the winner
is declared, assuming steps a) thru k) take an infintesimal amount of
time.

R 790, however, says

> Furthermore, the game, or a cycle of the game, cannot be over until
> the Fat Lady sings.

It is reasonable to construe "until the Fat Lady sings" in the context
of the rule, meaning "when the Speaker announces the Fat Lady is singing
on the declaration of a winner"

R 666, section k), claims to end the cycle, yet R 790 claims the cycle
cannot end until a certain event occurs, assuming the above renderings
of the appropriate passages. 

R 790 claims precedence, via:

> This rule takes precedence over all other rules dealing with end-of-game > conditions.

R 666 claims, via its title, to be an "End of Cycle" rule, but I haven't
known rule title to have any legal weight whatsoever.  Moreover, R 666
says "when a winner is declared", without distinguising between "game"
or "cycle".  Furthermore, game custom and R 904 both indicate "end of game"
and "end of cycle" are the same thing, thus the precedence claim above
applies to R 666, and R 790 thus establishes precedence over R 666.

If this precedence claim is found invalid for "cycles" as opposed to 
"games", this argument will still hold sway with regard to R 219 wins, 
as opposed to R 422 wins, but will complicate things a bit.

Anyway, we have R 666 k) and R 790 both claiming to end the cycle.  R 790
wins, and the cycle ends when the Speaker legally announces the the
Fat Lady is singing on a winner being declared.  A verdict of TRUE is
indicated.  Got this far?  Now the thorns and complications.

What happens when R 790 wins that precedence claim?  Does step k) hang
until the Speaker annouces the singing?  That is what we may like to
believe, but that seems like handwaving to me (for an examination of
this hanging, see CFJ 216, which was judged false for reasons unrelated
to the alledged hanging).  If there is no hanging, then what happens?

The cycle number is incremented on step k), but the cycle doesn't end
until later.  I guess that is ok, although a little weird.

Its worse.  CFJ 193 establishes implicit game custom about R 666:

> R666/2(b) through R666/s(m) are Ackanomic procedures to
> be carried out beyond the bounds of Ackanomic play, much as setting up
> "queen on color" is part of chess but not part of chess play [...]

Does the Fat Lady announcement fall in there?  Yes, akin to a chess 
referee announcing the conditions for checkmate have been legally 
established, and all other rules and meta-rules of chess were satisfied
for a win to be declared. 

The judge should also review CFJ 187, 188, 189, 193, 216 and a few others,
grep for 666 or "Grapefruit" or "Juice" (with a case-insensitive grep).

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #244
*******************************