Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #87
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Saturday, May 17 1997        Volume 02 : Number 087

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

Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 23:13:58 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Beldin's Parka

I am creating a trinket called Beldin's Parka at a cost of A$7
Description: It is made of coarse alpaca wool, flecked with gold and 
dyed with cochineal. Although it looks very much like a garment, it is 
said to cursed, and weird things happen to smelly detectives who attempt 
to wear it.

#trinket two-star: Beldin's Parka: 7

By my authority as Beldin's Tailor, I am amending the rule entitled 
Beldin's Pants by changing the final occurance of the word 'Pants' into 
the word 'Parka'

**two-star

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 09:32:08 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Status 

On Thu, 15 May 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

> >My humble opinion is that Acka is becoming more and more sedate,
> >safe and dull. In fact, if it wasn't for you people here, I'd have
> >wandered off long ago. The aliens were a pain in the @$$ that time,
> >hopefully they'll be a bit more entertaining next time.
> 
> I'm gonna second Bascules second of my plea and add the following

I originally voted against Aliens, but now I support keeping them.

Join MetaMorph!!!!!

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 09:54:28 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Status

On Thu, 15 May 1997, Ross Morgan-Linial wrote:

> 
> Actually, both of these show up in all nomic games. Acka seems to tend towards 
> the silliness part, but does seem to have shifted towards stability a bit 
> recently. However, there is no reason we can't make the game silly again. Agora 
> has just done the exact opposite - it tends toward stability, but recently 
> several things have shaken the game up, and nearly crashed the whole thing once 
> or twice. It has almost no silliness component, however.

I think this is the wrong dichotomy. It's not siliness vs. stability.  A
silly game can be very stable. And dynamic rulesets need not be silly.

> kidding) are also welcome to go and play Rishonomic (or better yet, stay and 
> play Rishonomic).

 I think Rishonomic stands out as having made a relatively big splash for
 a young nomic.  I have a feeling its name will continue to come up in
 discussions in other mailing lists. 
 
 Feels like the new baby, and every body looking trying to decide who it
 most resembles.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 09:19:31 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bond gift.

On Thu, 15 May 1997, Matt Miller wrote:

> #transfer IdiotBoy, Niccolo : 5 PFAlfvaen : Gift
> 
> IB
> (pending ack)
> 
> ------------------------------
>
I ack.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 09:18:33 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bond transfer.

On Thu, 15 May 1997, Matt Miller wrote:

> I offer 5 PFAlfvaen to Niccolo Flychuck for nada.
> 
> IB
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
I accept. Who is the Financier, btw?

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 00:52:58 -0700
From: Joshua Nave <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Status

Ross Morgan-Linial wrote:
> 
> Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]> wrote:

> You're right, no two Nomics should ever start to look alike. However, I see a
> sort of general trend as Nomics, and in fact all games and legal systems, tend
> in as they get older. The underlying procedures and definitions are fleshed out
> so that interesting changes can be made without confusion. People start
> worrying a lot about self-consistency, and quibble about smaller and smaller
> errors. People also get less willing to bend the letter of the law (I don't
> know why). You can see this by comparing Nomics of different ages (for example,
> Rishonomic, Ackanomic and Agora), card games of different ages (AniMayhem and
> Magic), or legal systems of different ages (Zaire and America).

You may feel this way, but in Rishonomic, there was an early drive by
two experienced players to "fix" our initial ruleset -- making it look
just like everyone elses.  Every nomic will tend toward some of the same
problems, particularly early on... but not every nomic will have the
same ideas on how to fix them.

Fortunately, EcoNomic has not yet been plagued by the same attitude :)

Narf

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 00:49:47 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Weddings 

Ackanomians,

This is going to be a heck of a weekend.  Two of my best friends are both
getting married.  I'm a groomsman tommorow and a best man on saturday.
Today was bachelor party night #2 (#1 was last saturday).  Anyhow, I think
that right now I'm a little too drunk to do what I was planning (that being
the dispersal of GAD results and the purchase of a missle (maybe I should
wait to see about abductions before purchasing a missle)) so I will (and I
promise, really, vynd) do it in the morning.

Goodnight,
A druken nacho

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 11:41:11 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Status 

> 
> Join MetaMorph!!!!!
> 
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck

I will join MetaMorph, I don't were MetaMorph is standing for, but I 
guess that I can morph the morals of MetaMorph after joining :)

CarsesraC 
- --               |
 \.             /;       
 \`--.._      //:        
 '\/////\  __/;' 
   '\////\`\`)' [email-masked]          
       \/'  |    
       :'_\'\    
      / | '" "'  
      ~~~

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 12:38:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Status

>Agora is nearing four years old (ack!), and is still fun and interesting, 
>although in a different way than Acka is. Agora is, IMO, just as fun as Acka, 
>but for a different sort of person. Of course, as a player in (currently) five 
>nomics, I have to say that I enjoy them all. I do take offense at your 
>statement that Agora players are unimaginative. They just prefer to use their 
>imagination to come up with interesting things to be done to the game itself, 
>instead of using it to make the strange and interesting rules found in Acka. 
>And it works - Agora has lasted a long time.

  This is my impression - there's a fair overlap between Agora and FRC,
which I play and which is about interactions of rules, basically.  So
they're both good, but different.  But Acka is getting more and more
bureaucratic; we need to fix that.  How?

- -------------------------------------------
    Daniel Knapp        Head Programmer
 [email-masked]    FeatherWate Software
    http://www.bergen.org/~dankna/FWS
- -------------------------------------------
      I think that I shall never see,
        A poem as lovely as a joke.
      Indeed - unless the poems fall,
     I may never see a joke - at all.
- -------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 12:42:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Trinket

>> is impossible because Niccolo doesn't have nada :)  Since I do have
>> nada, I might be willing to facilitate things.  I will either trade
>> nada to IB for the 5 PFAlfvaen, or I will sell nada to NF for A$10.
>> Whoever asks first.
>
>I offer A$11 for nada if its still for sell :)

  Hmm, I am creating a A$12 trinket called "5 PFAlfvaen" with a
description "It looks like a typical 5 PFAlfvaen." - I believe this is
legal though the stocks almost certainly don't function.  I'll trade it
for nada. :)

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 08:40:20 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 382 (/dev/joe) 

Call For Judgment
Subject: Pragmatic Paradox
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
Judge: /dev/joe
Judegement:

Statement: If a player attempts to create a Trinket whose value exceeds
the number of A$ in his possession, and the impossibility of this act
goes unreported for the next two weeks, following the two-week period of
non-reporting, it appears equally legal and illegal for that player to
trade the impossibly created Trinket (in the case where manipulation of
that Trinket has not been attempted since its creation).

Guy Fawkes' Reasoning:
As (Mohammed?) once said, "Retroactivity is blood in the water for paradox
sharks."

In this scenario (Actually, any situation where the acceptance of an
impossible change to the game state has a effect on the legality of later
actions would have worked), a player attempts to create a Trinket which e
cannot afford.  Rule 506 governs the creation of Trinkets.

> A player may create a Trinket by publically announcing its name,
> description, and value, as long as the player has
> at least as many A$ as the announced value. Upon doing so, the
> stated amount of A$ is transformed into the
> Trinket, and the creating player becomes the owner of the Trinket.

Clearly, the for a player to create a Trinket with a higher value than e
has A$ is against the Rules.  Rule 713 defines two classes of such
actions, a class of illegal actions (non-retractable errors), which
occur, but are punishable, and a class of of impermissible or impossible
actions (retractable errors), which cannot occur, although the attempt is
punishable.  Both these classes fall under the broader category of
Crimes, which also includes actions which are entirely within the rules
but nonetheless punishable, such as submitting substantially similar
proposals.

> To perform an action specified by the Rules to be Illegal is a Crime. An
> action specified by the Rules to be "impermissible" is, by contrast,
> impossible. However, an attempt to commit such an action is a Crime
> [even though the action itself does not occur].

A reading of the Trinket rule, as well as game custom and practice (take,
for example, CarsesraC's recent attempted creation of the A$1000 "rule
book of rings" trinkets) classifies the attempted creation of a Trinket
whose value exceeds the account balance of the creating player among the
"impossible" or "impermissible" (retractable) class of rule violations.
It does not occur, and the attempt to make it occur is a Crime.

Rule 713 goes on to attempt to add an element of pragmatism to impossible
and illegal actions.  Herein, however, lies the paradox.

> If, however, the illegally or impossiblility of a publically knowable
> change to the game state goes unreported for at least 14 days, the
> action or inaction which caused that change is considered legal, but it
> is still a Crime. The change is deemed to have occurred retroactively to
> the time of the attempt. The preceeding does not apply to the case of
> events which occur automatically, but whose occurrance is not (or
> erroneously) reported [e.g., loss of the Great Trombone]. This
> paragraph has precedence over rule 103.

As established above, the act of creating a Trinket for which one has
insufficent A$ is not an illegal act for the purposes of Rule 713, since
Rule 713 uses illegal to specifically refer to the class of
non-retractable, yet punishable, Rule violations.  It is, instead, an
impossible or impermissible act in the sense of Rule 713, which uses
those terms to describe retractable errors -- violations of the rules
which do not occur.

In the scenario with which this CFJ concerns itself, after the two-week
period of non-reporting, the "pragmatism clause" generates a retroactive
change to the game state; namely, it causes that particular instance of
the (in this case) impossible action to "legal, but... still a Crime".
This amusing arrangement of words is not in itself paradoxical, for Crime
in specfic Ackanomic usage refers to a very broad class of actions with
little in common save that they are all subject to CFCJ.  Some Crimes are
against the Rules and others are not.  "Legal" is used throughout the
Ruleset to refer to actions, names, entities, and other facets of the
game state which do not violate the rules.  Therefore, the effect of the
Rule 713's retroactive game state change is to cause the hitherto
impossible Trinket creation to become legal (within the rules), though to
remain a Crime (an action punishable by CFCJ).

>From both a legalistic point of view (the impossible/impermissible class
of game state changes is against the rules, whereas legal changes to the
game state are not) and in common language (an impossible event cannot
occur; therefore all events which occur are not impossible), the effect
of the "pragmatism clause" is to retroactively cause the normally
impossible Trinket creation to be not impossible.

(Aside: The purpose of the retroactivity is clear.  Had after creating
it, Player A traded it to Player B, who donated it to the Museum thereby
raising his BV above A$5000 and winning the cyle, causing the position of
Archaeologist to transfer from Player C to D, allowing D to create a new
OMCL, which was immediately used by Player E to obtain...  Rewinding the
game state for the other, unexpected but true thread is difficult if not
impossible, perhaps destroying weeks of play.)

However, this useful retroactivity causes a paradox: because Rule 713
changed the game state to make the impossible Trinket creation legal at
the time of the Trinket's creation, the Trinket creation is no longer
impossible (it occurred, didn't it?), and so Rule 713 is deprived of a
legal basis for altering the game state to its current one.  Of course,
if Rule 713 doesn't alter the game state, then the Trinket creation is
impossible, allowing it to be altered by Rule 713, thus depriving Rule
713 of the ability to alter it, and so forth...

It's a rephrasing of the time paradox of going back in time to murder
one's ancestor.

Retroactivity _is_ blood in the water for paradox sharks.

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 12:48:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Status

>without stopping being Ackanomic-like. It is possible to get a good, solid, 
>stable ruleset (which is what is happening now), and still have plenty of 
>zanyness, sillyness, illogic, and fun. Of course, there is less possibility of 
>a near-crash; but it is possible to have subsystems and subgames with less 

  Hope so.

>developed rulesets which could crash completely, without taking Ackanomic with 
>them. The people who like playing with fire (it's fun! try it sometime! just 
>kidding) are also welcome to go and play Rishonomic (or better yet, stay and 
>play Rishonomic).

  Then why are there immigration policies? :(

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 12:49:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Status

>Someone who likes a new fresh Nomic that they can mold themselves may get
>dissatisfied with what they have actually molded, and want to go to a new
>one.  (Is this perhaps why some have become so interested in Internomic?)
>Now those who like an already-mostly-established framework that they can
>tinker with will have more fun with it.

  That's what "Bonsai Nomic" (which doesn't, to my knowledge, exist) is
for.

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 12:11:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 382 (/dev/joe)

> Call For Judgment
> Subject: Pragmatic Paradox
> Initiator: Guy Fawkes
> Judge: /dev/joe
> Judegement:
> 
> Statement: If a player attempts to create a Trinket whose value exceeds
> the number of A$ in his possession, and the impossibility of this act
> goes unreported for the next two weeks, following the two-week period of
> non-reporting, it appears equally legal and illegal for that player to
> trade the impossibly created Trinket (in the case where manipulation of
> that Trinket has not been attempted since its creation).

Hmm, interesting that I get this CFJ so soon (seconds) after sending off
a message asking people to read the crime rules.  Now *I* have to re-read
them.

I'm not accepting or refusing this CFJ yet.  I will be away next week,
though I will be checking my mail, hopefully a little more often than
in my other recent trips.  If I don't come up with an answer before
Sunday morning I will decline this and let somebody else judge it.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 12:27:00 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Status

Red Barn wrote:

> But Acka is getting more and more
> bureaucratic; we need to fix that.  How?
> 
By "bureaucratic," do you mean having many officers in charge of
various things?  The only way to change that and keep the game playable
is to reduce the number of things that must be done or kept track of.
Right now, there are too many things for one officer to handle.  There
are also many combinations of tasks that some players would be
unwilling to tackle together, even if they were willing to undertake
some of the component tasks individually.  Breaking the supervisory
duties up among several offices allows the duties to be more easilly
assigned to a combination of players willing and able to perform them.
Eliminating offices without eliminating the need for their duties
being performed just shifts the responsability to the Speaker.

I am told that there was a time in Agora when some players actively
worked to _not_ win because winning would entail becoming Speaker,
which at the time seemed too onerous.  In Acka, if the Speaker's duties
became too burdensome he would either step down, violate the rules, or
unofficially delegate some of the responsabilities.  The first would
likely halt many areas of Ackanomic business; the second is
unacceptable; and the third is parallel to what we have now.

ThinMan
Acting Speaker
Former Financier

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 15:10:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Status

>By "bureaucratic," do you mean having many officers in charge of
>various things?  The only way to change that and keep the game playable
>is to reduce the number of things that must be done or kept track of.

  Not necessarily too many officers, just too much formality.  Of course,
the game wouldn't be the same without that stuff, but it's still details.
I'm going to create further controversy by saying that, if only the rules
weren't forever changing, it *would* be automateable...

>Right now, there are too many things for one officer to handle.  There
>are also many combinations of tasks that some players would be
>unwilling to tackle together, even if they were willing to undertake
>some of the component tasks individually.  Breaking the supervisory
>duties up among several offices allows the duties to be more easilly
>assigned to a combination of players willing and able to perform them.
>Eliminating offices without eliminating the need for their duties
>being performed just shifts the responsability to the Speaker.

  No complaint about the offices per se, only the need for 'em.

>I am told that there was a time in Agora when some players actively
>worked to _not_ win because winning would entail becoming Speaker,
>which at the time seemed too onerous.  In Acka, if the Speaker's duties
>became too burdensome he would either step down, violate the rules, or
>unofficially delegate some of the responsabilities.  The first would
>likely halt many areas of Ackanomic business; the second is
>unacceptable; and the third is parallel to what we have now.

  I still don't see a good solution.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 14:46:56 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Status

Red Barn wrote:
[I wrote:]
> >By "bureaucratic," do you mean having many officers in charge of
> >various things?  The only way to change that and keep the game
> playable
> >is to reduce the number of things that must be done or kept track of.
> 
>   Not necessarily too many officers, just too much formality.  Of
> course,
> the game wouldn't be the same without that stuff, but it's still
> details.
> 
Exactly.  If we want to have trinkets, then we have to track them.  If
we want to have PFbonds, then we have to track them.  Likewise
currency and the free market.  Likewise all the details involved in a
subgame or treasure hunt.  And so on.  In order to track all that must
be tracked, formalisms are necessary.  So which parts of Acka do you
want to chuck?

> I'm going to create further controversy by saying that, if only the
> rules
> weren't forever changing, it *would* be automateable...
> 
Exactly what do you _like_ about Acka?  If the rules stopped changing
then it would arguably no longer be Nomic, even if the rules still
permitted changing the rules.  And what does being automatable
have to do with it, anyway?

>   No complaint about the offices per se, only the need for 'em.
> 
Again I ask, which parts of Acka do you suggest we drop?  It is
necessary to either continuously track all the details of the game
state, or to go back and figure them out when it is necessary to know
them.  The former is, IMO, easier, but either way delegation of
authority among officers is the only reasonable approach I see.  The
only way to reduce the need for officers is to reduce the number of
variables which make up the game state.

>   I still don't see a good solution.
> 
I'm not surprised.  If you thought there was some part of the game that
we could do away with, other than officers in general, then I think you
would have said so.  Thus you want to have your cake and eat it too --
you want to have all the same parts of the game, but without the
"beaurocracy" that keeps it all going.  To me, that looks like an
insoluble problem.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 16:22:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Status

>Exactly.  If we want to have trinkets, then we have to track them.  If
>we want to have PFbonds, then we have to track them.  Likewise
>currency and the free market.  Likewise all the details involved in a
>subgame or treasure hunt.  And so on.  In order to track all that must
>be tracked, formalisms are necessary.  So which parts of Acka do you
>want to chuck?
>
>Exactly what do you _like_ about Acka?  If the rules stopped changing
>then it would arguably no longer be Nomic, even if the rules still
>permitted changing the rules.  And what does being automatable
>have to do with it, anyway?

  This is the problem.  By its very nature, the game is too complex to be
simple.  (Or something.)  I suppose automation wouldn't really help even
if functional, though.

...
>authority among officers is the only reasonable approach I see.  The
>only way to reduce the need for officers is to reduce the number of
>variables which make up the game state.

  What I said.

>I'm not surprised.  If you thought there was some part of the game that
>we could do away with, other than officers in general, then I think you
>would have said so.  Thus you want to have your cake and eat it too --
>you want to have all the same parts of the game, but without the
>"beaurocracy" that keeps it all going.  To me, that looks like an
>insoluble problem.

  Indeed.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 17:01:27 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Status

Red Barn wrote:

> the game is too complex to be
> simple.
> 
Can I quote you on that?  :)

Anyway, although I may not share Red Barn's opinion about the
beaurocracy of Acka, we seem to agree that we cannot viably dump
parts of the game Administration without dumping the associated parts
of the game as well.

ThinMan
"The game is too complex to be simple."  -- Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 17:49:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: "S. Quicksilver" <sq>
Subject: Acka: Whoops, forgot I had that feature on :-o

There's this silly feature in majordomo that bounces "admin-looking"
messages to the list-owner address -- mainly for deflecting subscribe
and unsubscribe requests that are sent to the list instead of to
majordomo.  Once in a rare while it catches a legitimate message.

Anyway, the change in addresses on the lists has already been done.

/dev/joe's acka list admin account

Forwarded message:
> Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 14:31:41 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Acka: ch*nge of *ddress
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> 
> As some of you may already know, I am going to have very limited net 
> access over the summer.  (email only, and only via a local free-net 
> cobbled together literally from whatever parts and software the sysop 
> could beg, borrow, or steal, in a broom closet in the local university).
> 
> I considered taking Permanent Vacation for the summer, but then I 
> realized I was not a member of FOOZBALL, and I like this place too much.
> 
> ...SO...
> 
> Please address all nomic-related material to me at
> 
> [email-masked]
> 
> I don't know whether this will work or not, but we've always waid Acka 
> should be playable by someone who checks their email only once every three 
> days.  Now, I'll get to see just how much of a joke that is.
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> 

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 18:51:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Status

On Thu, 15 May 1997, Ross Morgan-Linial wrote:
> errors. People also get less willing to bend the letter of the law (I don't 
> know why). You can see this by comparing Nomics of different ages
	Interesting observation.  I've actually gotten significantly
more willing to bend the letter of the law starting from the moment I
got appointed to an office.  :o)

- -- 
Mohammed
Meanwhile, a few days ago, American vampires from Juneau cackled evilly.

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 18:53:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Status 

On Fri, 16 May 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:
> Join MetaMorph!!!!!
	I would like to join MetaMorph, but wasn't sure where it was
going.  If it's going to become a Party I'll have to pass.

- -- 
Mohammed
A well-mannered dawg fell asleep while breathtaking dancers gave long
lectures.

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 21:12:26 CST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka and the second law

Inertia is a terrible thing.  It makes you believe that things are still
and stagnant while in fact they are moving along at a steady pace.  When
the inner ear of your conscience is lulled to sleep,  a sudden jolt,  as from a surging acceleration or a screaching halt,  is the only thing that
can remind you that you are indeed still alive.

Never being one who enjoys slamming on the brakes just to hear the tires chirp,  I have been thinking of ways to "hit he gas" instead.

As soon as real life concerns give me a moment to clear my head,  maybe I
can come up with something.  But be warned:  I already know that it will
have something to do with a dear departed buddy.

HC

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #87
******************************