Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #91
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Wednesday, May 21 1997        Volume 02 : Number 091

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 02:44:22 -0500
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Senate Volunteer

>Bob, It is my considered opinion that you should once again volunteer to be
>senator.  We like a man like you in the senate.

I hereby volunteer for the office of Senator.

If I need to send this to someone other than /dev/joe and the public, please
direct me accordingly.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 12:02:18 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Seeking followers for a new Church

People of Ackanomic,

I have seen a Vision.  In that vision I saw a figure that kept changing
its shape. At no two instances did it retain the same likeness, and it
spoke to me. Some moments it spoke with an elegant tenor, at other with a
sing song contralto, and then it lapsed into a visual language of symbols.
It spoke of the Winds of Change that are the breath of life of nomic and
that they must be unleashed.

When the Vision ended my path was clear, I must Found a Church. I am
seeking Followers for this new Church.
I shall name this Church : The Church of Odo on the Wormhole.

Niccolo Flychuck

Visionary

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 08:15:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Seeking followers for a new Church

On Tue, 20 May 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

> When the Vision ended my path was clear, I must Found a Church. I am
> seeking Followers for this new Church.
> I shall name this Church : The Church of Odo on the Wormhole.
> 
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> Visionary
> 

Oh yes, I share that vision! I, yes, I, would like to join this Church!

IB

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 08:24:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: I'm melllllting.

I would like to announce the dissolution of BAKER.

IB

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 14:47:37 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: acka : Seeking followers for a new Church

Niccolo Flychuck had a dream: 

> When the Vision ended my path was clear, I must Found a Church. I am
> seeking Followers for this new Church.
> I shall name this Church : The Church of Odo on the Wormhole.

O great leader of the Church of Odo on the Wormhole accept me as 
Follower of your new Church. 

CarsesraC 
- --
Good news: I got a job !!!
My future company is Getronics Network Services.
And I will be working as a helpdeskworker.
GNS is also specialised in interworkservices.

Jeroen M.W. van Dijk

Jeroen M.W. van Dijk

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 14:47:37 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Two New Players (Guy Fawkes & Niccolo to ment)

> >> So who are they?  Meet the newest voting player, Eris Discordia,
> >> real name Erikk Piper, who hails from [email-masked].
> > 
> > It's actually [email-masked] (Brno being my
> > big-village-of-residence). I suppose I should send this correction to
> > the general forum, but I'm lazy and it's easiest just to send a reply
> > mail to, well, to you.
> 
> snowgod's disease hearing ... new player ... must ... resist
> ... temptation ...

I challenge you to prove that, this is case of snowgod's disease :)

CarsesraC

 
 
- --
Good news: I got a job !!!
My future company is Getronics Network Services.
And I will be working as a helpdeskworker.
GNS is also specialised in interworkservices.

Jeroen M.W. van Dijk

Jeroen M.W. van Dijk

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 05:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Two New Players (Guy Fawkes & Niccolo to ment)

>>>> So who are they?  Meet the newest voting player, Eris Discordia,
>>>> real name Erikk Piper, who hails from [email-masked].
>>> 
>>> It's actually [email-masked] (Brno being my
>>> big-village-of-residence). I suppose I should send this correction
>>> to the general forum, but I'm lazy and it's easiest just to send a
>>> reply mail to, well, to you.
>> 
>> snowgod's disease hearing ... new player ... must ... resist
>> ... temptation ...
> 
> I challenge you to prove that, this is case of snowgod's disease :)

That is exactly what a successful hearing would do, and is exactly
what I am trying (nnNNNNGgg) to resist.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 08:16:31 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Senate Volunteer

Robert Sevin wrote:

> I hereby volunteer for the office of Senator.
> 
> If I need to send this to someone other than /dev/joe and the public,
> please
> direct me accordingly.
> 
You actually need to send it to me, but I now have it, and that's that.
The nomination lasts until 12:52 AM tomorrow morning.  I have several
nominations each for Senator and Ackaphysicist, but more are always
welcome.

ThinMan
Acting Speaker

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 09:24:43 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe

May 19 13:50 EDT: +6 two-star: posting what Phoebe says

Antimatter has found Phoebe's matchbox.

#transfer two-star, Antimatter: Phoebe's Matchbox: 5/20/97

ThinMan
Acting Speaker

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 09:02:16 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Harf

I would like to request membership in the Harf party.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--No Doubt:Don't Speak
Current Book--Liavek:Festival Week
"Lloyd, you know how stupid I am about moves."

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 11:12:39 -0500
From: Super Andy <[email-masked]>
Subject: sorry guys

#unsubscribe

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 08:43:51 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Seeking followers for a new Church 

>People of Ackanomic,
>
>I have seen a Vision.  In that vision I saw a figure that kept changing
>its shape. At no two instances did it retain the same likeness, and it
>spoke to me. Some moments it spoke with an elegant tenor, at other with a
>sing song contralto, and then it lapsed into a visual language of symbols.
>It spoke of the Winds of Change that are the breath of life of nomic and
>that they must be unleashed.
>
>When the Vision ended my path was clear, I must Found a Church. I am
>seeking Followers for this new Church.
>I shall name this Church : The Church of Odo on the Wormhole.
>
>
>Niccolo Flychuck
>
>Visionary

This seems consistent with the one true faith, the markovian faith.  I
would like to join.

Nacho

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 12:55:31 -0500
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Seeking followers for a new Church 

Niccolo Flychuck had a dream: 

> When the Vision ended my path was clear, I must Found a Church. I am
> seeking Followers for this new Church.
> I shall name this Church : The Church of Odo on the Wormhole.

Ya know, I've often considered myself an irreligious fellow, but I feel this
church has a purpose that I cannot deny. I request admission to The Church
of Odo on the Wormhole.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 13:36:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Status Change 

I hereby change my status from Non-Voting Player to Voting Player.

CnH

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 17:19:51 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: acka : Seeking followers for a new Church 

At 12:55 PM 5/20/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Niccolo Flychuck had a dream: 
>
>> When the Vision ended my path was clear, I must Found a Church. I am
>> seeking Followers for this new Church.
>> I shall name this Church : The Church of Odo on the Wormhole.

This Vision has haunted me for days, Niccolo - I request entry into your Church.

Alboy

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 17:27:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Seeking followers for a new Church

I humbly present myself as a hopeful member of the Church of Odo on the
Wormhole.

- -mr cwm

On Tue, 20 May 1997, Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

>
>People of Ackanomic,
>
>I have seen a Vision.  In that vision I saw a figure that kept changing
>its shape. At no two instances did it retain the same likeness, and it
>spoke to me. Some moments it spoke with an elegant tenor, at other with a
>sing song contralto, and then it lapsed into a visual language of symbols.
>It spoke of the Winds of Change that are the breath of life of nomic and
>that they must be unleashed.
>
>When the Vision ended my path was clear, I must Found a Church. I am
>seeking Followers for this new Church.
>I shall name this Church : The Church of Odo on the Wormhole.
>
>
>Niccolo Flychuck
>
>Visionary
>
>
>
>

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

Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 01:51:44 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : upcoming Vacation

People of Ackanomic,
In a few days, sometime on 24/25, I will be going on Vacation.
If anyone is planning to volunteer to act in my stead in any of my offices
(Chess-Umpire, which is optional, or RuneMaker) , please let me know in
advance, so that duties can be transferred smoothly.

If Chess-Umpire remains unfilled, the only effect is that Party Chess will
effectively be suspended until some takes the office (or until I get back)
 RuneMaker is not game critical either.  

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: 20 May 1997 20:07:52 CST/CDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Need Carsesrac's address 

My new client unfortunately lists all mail coming from the mailing lists
as coming from the mailing list, rather than its author.  As a result, I
am having difficulty replying to the latest Virus postings.  Could
someone please give me his address?

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 17:37:30 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 383 (IdiotBoy) 

Call For Judgment
Subject: Partial Repeals
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
Judge: IdiotBoy
Judegement:

Statement:

The acceptance of proposal 1992 does not cause rule 207 or rule 709 to
be changed in any way.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

Proposal 1992 contained the following two provisions:

	Repeal Rule 207, Section V [Effect of Proposals which do not
	meet Quorum]

	Repeal Rule 709, paragraph 4.  [Players in Gaol and Quorum]

The potential problem with these is that it is questionable whether it
is possible to "repeal" _parts_ of rules.

The rules no longer specify in detail what changes may be made to the
rules.  Until recently, however, they indicated that rules could be
created, amended, or repealed.  No room was allowed for repeal of
parts of rules.  Indeed, the effect that Guy Fawkes intended to achieve
may have been an amendment of the rules in question.

Because the rules no longer specify explicitly whether the changes
indicated by P1992 are legal, we must fall back on game custom to
interpret the rules.  In the past we have excised parts of rules by
amending the rules, not by attempting to "repeal" those parts.  To
whatever extent that indicates custom, the questionable clauses of
P1992 may be ineffective.  Alternatively, the judge only need find
that an attempt to "repeal" part of a rule is meaningless.

I cite Rule 104:

	If the proposal consisted of a list of one-time effects, such as
	changes to the rules, then those effects shall be applied, one
	at a time, in the order in which they appear in the proposal.
	(Ambiguous, conditional, retroactive, and/or meaningless effects
	are ignored.)

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 17:42:17 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Need Carsesrac's address 

>My new client unfortunately lists all mail coming from the mailing lists
>as coming from the mailing list, rather than its author.  As a result, I
>am having difficulty replying to the latest Virus postings.  Could
>someone please give me his address?
>
>Guy Fawkes

How about  [email-masked]

snow, er, Mr. Nacho
Registrar

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 19:48:21 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Email forwarding?

> My new client unfortunately lists all mail coming from the mailing lists
> as coming from the mailing list, rather than its author.  As a result, I
> am having difficulty replying to the latest Virus postings.  Could
> someone please give me his address?

This suddenly makes me wonder if, as some kind of bizarre service to its
members, Ackanomic should somehow provide automatic email forwarding.  In
other words, there should be some machine where you could send email to
carsesrac, or guy_fawkes, or mohammed, or whatever, and it would get
forwarded automagically to their real address.

Ideally, this would be @ackanomic.org, but of course registering with NIS
costs money these days.  I'd volunteer my own Linux box, but I'm not
continuously connected with the Net, so that wouldn't be much better.
Maybe Acrobot could handle it somehow...?  But ideally it should be on
someone's machine where they can modify /etc/aliases, or the non-UNIX
equivalent.

Anyway, just a thought.  The game won't collapse without it, but it might
be a way to Make Our Lives More Convenient.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--Feeding Like Butterflies:John In His Earth Suit
Current Book--Liavek:Festival Week
My cough is entirely gone and I can stand on my head without effort.

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 21:55:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 383 (IdiotBoy)

On Tue, 20 May 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

> Call For Judgment
> Subject: Partial Repeals
> Initiator: Guy Fawkes
> Judge: IdiotBoy
> Judegement:
> 

Good God.  Ok, I'll accept judgement on this.

IB

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 18:05:43 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 382 Appeal 

CFJ382 has been appealed to the supreme court by Guy Fawkes.  I've never
done this before, so... anything else I need to do?

Call For Judgment
Subject: Pragmatic Paradox
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
Judge: /dev/joe
Judgement:False
Appeal Verdict:

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.

/dev/joe's reasoning:
The situation described in the CFJ is (briefly) that a player attempts to
create a trinket with more A$ than he owns, the impossibility of this is
not reported for 14 days, and then the third paragraph of rule 713 kicks in,
retroactively making the action legal.

Guy claims that the retroactivity causes a paradox, that once Rule 713
makes the action legal, Rule 713 no longer applies since the action is
no longer impossible or illegal, and that this causes Rule 713 to have
never triggered in the first place, which means it *can* trigger, etc.

However, Rule 713 only retroactively makes things legal.  It doesn't
retroactively make things illegal, nor does it retroactively undo its
own effects.  The only thing it does retroactively is make an illegal
or impossible action become legal.  So once the conditions for making
the illegal trinket creation retroactively legal occur, Rule 713
retroactively makes it legal.  After this, it cannot retroactively make
it legal again because the conditions for doing so cannot be met again,
but this doesn't matter because the action is already legal.

If the illegality of the creation of a trinket worth more A$ than a
player has goes unreported for 14 days, the creation becomes legal.

Sometimes when paradox sharks smell blood, blood is all they swallow.
The bleeding man hasn't totally escaped yet though -- there may still
be a paradox with this rule, but this isn't it.

Appellate comments:

Both the original judge and I agree on two things.
1) The effect of the "pragmatism clause" is to retroactively make an
illegal or impossible game action legal.
2) It can only do this once, and has no other direct game effects.

The original judge, however, is mistaken about the ramifications of this
change.  The "pragmatism clause" does not have to make a legal action
illegal retroactively or _directly_ undermine its own action for paradox
to exist.  Because it has a retroactive effect, it can be thought of as
a "retroactive cause", whose effect is the legality of the normally
impossible action.  This legality has several proactive (forward or
normal causality) game effects;  for example, once legally created, the
trinket can be traded, which it could not be if it had never been
legally created.  Another of these proactive effects is that two weeks
after the legal creation of the trinket, the "pragmatism clause" cannot
kick in -- an illegal game state change has not gone unquestioned for
two weeks.

The only way in which the normally impossible trinket creation can be
legal is by the action of the "pragmatism clause".  The pragmatism
clause only applies to illegal or impossible changes to the game state
that go unquestioned for two weeks.  Therefore, if the game state change
is legal (even if its legality is based solely on the "pragmatism
clause") the pragmatism clause cannot make it legal.  Thus, no
non-paradoxical threads in which the trinket is created exist.

If, however, the trinket creation is illegal, and no one questions its
creation, it is not illegal due to the action of the pragmatism clause.
Thus, no non-paradoxical threads in which the trinket is not created,
yet no one questions its creation, exist.

Basically, no game thread can contain both the retroactive legalization
of the trinket creation and the legal creation of the trinket, nor can a
game thread contain the unchallenged illegal creation attempt of the
trinket, and that creations continued illegality.

The retroactive change to the game state inititates a host of proactive
changes, one of which eliminates the original retroactive game change.

Most simply, the retroactive cause and the retroactive effect cannot
co-exist in the same thread.  Effects must have causes, and causes must
have effects.  Paradox.

If the Supreme Court disagrees, I would appreciate in its reasoning a
non-paradoxical game thread in which the normally impossible trinket
creations is either definitively legal or illegal, and no one questions
its legality.  Such a thread should begin slightly before the creation
of the Trinket, end slightly more than two-weeks later, and be
self-consistent.

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 23:38:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 383 (IdiotBoy)

> Because the rules no longer specify explicitly whether the changes
> indicated by P1992 are legal, we must fall back on game custom to
> interpret the rules.  In the past we have excised parts of rules by
> amending the rules, not by attempting to "repeal" those parts.  To
> whatever extent that indicates custom, the questionable clauses of
> P1992 may be ineffective. 
	In the past, "to repeal [a rule]" has indeed had a
well-defined meaning, but that does *not* indicate that "to repeal
[part of a rule]" is traditionally meaningless.
	To the contrary, I'd venture to guess that people have used
"to repeal [an idea]" casually in the public forum, a la "The quorum
requirement really needs to be repealed."  Perhaps "to repeal [part of
a rule]" has been used in much the same way.
	Just because this usage of the word was not allowed in
proposals by the rules (until recently) doesn't indicate that it is
meaningless.

R104> (Ambiguous, conditional, retroactive, and/or meaningless effects
R104> are ignored.)
	If P1992 were really meaningless, its meaning wouldn't be so
clear.

- -- 
Mohammed
"Fallacy" sounds a lot like "heresy".

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 23:45:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Email forwarding?

On Tue, 20 May 1997, Aaron Humphrey wrote:
> This suddenly makes me wonder if, as some kind of bizarre service to its
> members, Ackanomic should somehow provide automatic email forwarding.  In
	[deletia]
> Maybe Acrobot could handle it somehow...?
	Very interesting suggestion.  But people change e-mail
addresses so suddenly the bot would have trouble keeping up.  And I
don't like to look at bounced mail.  :o)
	Another bot overhaul is overdue, btw; it needs to allow

#user mohammed : password

	...so that people can send mail from addresses other than
their normal address.  I am considering making the #user line
mandatory, or at least allowing individual players to make it
mandatory if they wish.
	However, given the way the bot is currently structured (it
decides your identity before doing *anything* else) adding this
feature will mean rewriting a largish block of code.
	Comments?  Now's the time for them.

- -- 
Mohammed
You know, it's dangerous out there.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #91
******************************