Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #416
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Saturday, December 13 1997      Volume 02 : Number 416

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 20:01:46 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC for orgs

	In light of recent events and events which appear to be upcoming, I
have joined the faction which seeks to redo the org rules.  Here's what I
was thinking:
Churches are replaced by religions.  Religions which fall under the minimum
number of people die.  They can own things, but would have limits placed on
trade.  A player could be a member of one at a time.  There would however
be rules for instituting a state religion and so on.  Churches may own a
more than human, or the closest equivelent.  The founder choses who to let
in.

Political parties remain, but can't own things, or at least have huge
limits on them.  One per player.  Party unity remains.  Perhaps an ability
to force members to vote certain ways on certain things.  The members chose
who to let in.

Orgs with trade licenses are replaced by corporations.  Corporations have
100 shares.  Players owning a total of 51 can cause them to do things.  Has
a set of rules when created for splitting up properties owned.  Any
properties not accounted for go to the treasury.  May own a secret lab, but
pays a fee every time it's used.  There is a fee to create a corporation.
Corp's may own things and trade freely.  Anyone who buys shares is a member.

All other orgs are replaced by societies.  A society costs nothing to
create, and can't do anything.  It is primarily a social device.  A few
current orgs (the one that springs to mind first is the Rebellion) would
survive in this form.  The members choose who to let in.

To sum up, the tree most common types of organizations, Churches, Political
Parties, those with Trade Licenses, and those which serve a social
function, are converted. I don't think any of the others a legitimate
anyway.  Comments?

- --
Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio

- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the
follies of one's own times.  The ability to change one's own times is the
true test of a leader.  And the ability to do both is the true test of a
visionary who will never be elected."
	-Marilyn vos Savant

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 01:04:58 -0000
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC

I plan on resubmitting my proposal about RFCs, hopefully modified to
such an extent that the obvious scam (I can't believe I didn't see
that) is eliminated. Is there anything else that needs doing to it, and
would you vote for it if I get it right?

If a player makes a request for comment (labeled as such or otherwise)
on an action which has never been previously performed no other player
may take action to perform the material discussed therein within the
next eight days, unless the first player either leaves the game or
publicly posts that they don't mind this being done. If a player
attempts to submit a proposal that does so then the proposal is
invalid. Any other actions which are attempted that do so simply do not
happen. If the RFC concerns something which can only be done for a
limited period of time, such as voting on a particular proposal, and
the time period involved for this action is fewer than ten days then
this rule has no effect. [As well as the obvious, this also allows
enough time for a loop-hole to be shut by making a request for comment
on whether to exploit the loophole and then submitting a proposal to
close the loophole.]

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 00:54:35 -0000
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

> 	Oops, sorry about the misspelling.  Don't forget the item isn't
> created for three days.  

Oh yeah, I forgot.

Finally, I just realized that I never got the A$50
> (Slakki transfered it to YAT#1 before YAT#1 was created.)  

You can't have been too concerned about mis-spelling

The good news is
> that I found a faster way to do the whole thing.  Therefore:
> I leave all cults of which I am a member and which own nothing.

I leave all churches and cults of which I am a member.

> (You three, please offer to join ALL of them.  They only come into
> existance when I send a message specifically saying so, and I won't
make
> more than two of them Churches at any given time.)
> I intend to create a church named AHH#1.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#2.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#3.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#4.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#5.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#6.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#7.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#8.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#9.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#10.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#11.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#12.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#13.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#14.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#15.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#16.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#17.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#18.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#19.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#20.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#21.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#22.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#23.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#24.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#25.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#26.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#27.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#28.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#29.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#30.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#31.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#32.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#33.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#34.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#35.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#36.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#37.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#38.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#39.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#40.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#41.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#42.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#43.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#44.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#45.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#46.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#47.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#48.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#49.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#50.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#51.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#52.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#53.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#54.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#55.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#56.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#57.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#58.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#59.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#60.

I join all of the above.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 03:00:43 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Question

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> > The current structure still leaves a lot to be desired, and with a little
> > more investment, and a little more time, that Henry's scam could have been
> > easily perpetrated. The fact that it didn't quite work the way he did it,
> > doesn't indicate thatthere is no bug in those rules. They are full of
> > bugs. The problem is not so much ferreting out the bugs, as deciding where
> > we want those rule to go. I think single player organizations have to go,
> > or at least be restricted. I think there shouldlimits on membership,
> > reasonable limits. Both the Party and the Church limits are reasonable.
> > 
> > And my least popular opinion is that I'd rather see generic Organizations
> > either go, or be severly restricted as well.
> 
> The proposal to make it cost A$50 to start an organization should severely
> hamper scams of this forms; I have already submitted a proposal to amend
> the Secret Lab so that the one-per-month restriction is based on the Lab,
> not the Org.
> 
> /dev/joe
> 
these are all good amendments, but they are patches, they are directed at
the symptoms (perhaps the setup fee less so)

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 03:02:40 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Question

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Towsner wrote:

> >The proposal to make it cost A$50 to start an organization should severely
> >hamper scams of this forms; I have already submitted a proposal to amend
> >the Secret Lab so that the one-per-month restriction is based on the Lab,
> >not the Org.
> 
> 	First, basing it on the lab doesn't solve the general problem.
> Malekai clearly has something up his sleeve, and I see at least two more
> scams coming up shortly.  The whole structure needs to be redone.
> 	Second, how does the A$50 limit help?  Once you create theorg,
> can't you just order the org to give back the money?

The A$50 doesn't go to the org, it goes to the Treasury (I'll have to look
up the proposal, but that's what I remember it says - and that's the
provision that will get my vote)

 > 
> - --
> Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio
> 
> - -Henry Towsner
> 
> 	<[email-masked]>
> 
> 	"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the
> follies of one's own times.  The ability to change one's own times is the
> true test of a leader.  And the ability to do both is the true test of a
> visionary who will never be elected."
> 	-Marilyn vos Savant
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 20:12:06 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

>I plan on resubmitting my proposal about RFCs, hopefully modified to
>such an extent that the obvious scam (I can't believe I didn't see
>that) is eliminated. Is there anything else that needs doing to it, and
>would you vote for it if I get it right?
	Is it neccessary?  Is this really a problem?  Personally, I
wouldn't vote for a stolen proposal in general.
	Which makes me think, what about a type of proposal (call it
collective) for which there is no destinction as to who submits it (whether
it passes or fails, nothing happens to the person who submits it).  It
could be used for major proposals which are made by collective effort.

- --
Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio

- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the
follies of one's own times.  The ability to change one's own times is the
true test of a leader.  And the ability to do both is the true test of a
visionary who will never be elected."
	-Marilyn vos Savant

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 20:08:40 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Losing my religion

I leave all cults and churches which I am a member.

In order not to slow down the workings of that scam, since
my nomicking time will be limited for the rest of the weekend,
I bow out at this time.  Perhaps you can throw me one of those
gadgets in 3 days :-)

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 20:18:23 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Losing my religion

>In order not to slow down the workings of that scam, since
>my nomicking time will be limited for the rest of the weekend,
>I bow out at this time.  Perhaps you can throw me one of those
>gadgets in 3 days :-)
	Well, in that case I'll need a third member.  It will, of course,
be well worth your while.

- --
Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio

- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the
follies of one's own times.  The ability to change one's own times is the
true test of a leader.  And the ability to do both is the true test of a
visionary who will never be elected."
	-Marilyn vos Savant

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 20:16:12 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Question

> The A$50 doesn't go to the org, it goes to the Treasury (I'll have to look
> up the proposal, but that's what I remember it says - and that's the
> provision that will get my vote)

No, the money goes to the org, but the org cannot give it to
anyone without a trade license (unless somehow CFJ 488 is judged
true).

Niccolo is right, it is a patch.  However, given the water building
behind the dam, its nice to have a patch in the queue, and I strongly
recommend voting for it ...

Malenkai
heck, I've only been reading these org rules for about a week or two ... :)

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 20:21:47 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Question

>The A$50 doesn't go to the org, it goes to the Treasury (I'll have to look
>up the proposal, but that's what I remember it says - and that's the
>provision that will get my vote)
	The proposal says that it gets transferred to the org.  <cough>
scam <cough>  By the way, it probably isn't necessary to quote my signature
(it isn't *that* clever:)

- --
Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio

- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the
follies of one's own times.  The ability to change one's own times is the
true test of a leader.  And the ability to do both is the true test of a
visionary who will never be elected."
	-Marilyn vos Savant

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 20:28:50 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Question

>No, the money goes to the org, but the org cannot give it to
>anyone without a trade license (unless somehow CFJ 488 is judged
>true).
	"A Player or organization who owns a gift entity may transfer that
entity to another Player or organization as a public action."(Rule 515)

- --
Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio

- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the
follies of one's own times.  The ability to change one's own times is the
true test of a leader.  And the ability to do both is the true test of a
visionary who will never be elected."
	-Marilyn vos Savant

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 01:31:04 -0000
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC for orgs

> 	In light of recent events and events which appear to be upcoming, I
> have joined the faction which seeks to redo the org rules.  Here's
what I
> was thinking:
> Churches are replaced by religions.  Religions which fall under the
minimum
> number of people die.  They can own things, but would have limits
placed on
> trade.  A player could be a member of one at a time.  There would
however
> be rules for instituting a state religion and so on.  Churches may
own a
> more than human, or the closest equivelent.  The founder choses who
to let
> in.
> 
> Political parties remain, but can't own things, or at least have huge
> limits on them.  One per player.  Party unity remains.  Perhaps an
ability
> to force members to vote certain ways on certain things.  The members
chose
> who to let in.
> 
> Orgs with trade licenses are replaced by corporations.  Corporations
have
> 100 shares.  Players owning a total of 51 can cause them to do
things.  Has
> a set of rules when created for splitting up properties owned.  Any
> properties not accounted for go to the treasury.  May own a secret
lab, but
> pays a fee every time it's used.  There is a fee to create a
corporation.
> Corp's may own things and trade freely.  Anyone who buys shares is a
member.
> 
> All other orgs are replaced by societies.  A society costs nothing to
> create, and can't do anything.  It is primarily a social device.  A
few
> current orgs (the one that springs to mind first is the Rebellion)
would
> survive in this form.  The members choose who to let in.
> 
> To sum up, the tree most common types of organizations, Churches,
Political
> Parties, those with Trade Licenses, and those which serve a social
> function, are converted. I don't think any of the others a legitimate
> anyway.  Comments?

I quite like this. I like the idea of shares in a company, and I think
that the idea of limiting each player to one church makes sense. I'd
split up into four groups like you said and would have different
organizational powers for each one (except for social groups which
wouldn't have any). Most of the current powers would be for
corporations. I would also forbid churches and political parties from
owning anything except for trinkets and acka-dollars. To set up a
political party you would have to pay to the senate however much a big
tent currently costs. To set up a church you have to build a church
building and to set up a corporation you have to pay the treasury to
create at least 100 shares worth at least A$3 each. These shares could
then be sold on for whatever price people were willing to pay. If the
org disbands all owners of shares get back the amount that they were
initially worth from the treasury. No corporation may own shares in
another corporation. To get an action through in a corporation, the
owner(s) of at least half the shares must support it. All organisations
must consist of at least two players. Or something like that anyway...

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 20:42:12 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 488 (rufus)

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> rufus has been selected.
`
I accept this CFJ.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgment 488
>   Subject: Receiving Secret Laboratories
> Initiator: The Gingham Wearer
> Submitted: 97-12-13 13:21
>     Judge: rufus (selected 97-12-13 14:22)
> Judgement: 
> 
> Statement:
> 
> The organisation Shell#2 received a Secret Laboratory from the
> organisation Shell#1 when Else...if posted the following:
> 
> "I suggest that Shell#1 transfer the Secret Laboratory to Shell#2
> I approve the suggestion
> I suggest that Shell#2 recieve the Secret Laboratory from Shell#1
> I approve the suggestion"
> 
> Initiator's Comments:
> 
> Rule 101 states that:
> 
> "The rules and the game state may only be changed as described in the
> rules."
> 
> However rule 101 also states:
> 
> "Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by the rules,
> however, is permitted and unregulated"
> 
> This is part of the rules and it is therefore permissible to change the
> game state or rules in any way that is not forbidden by the rules.
> Nowhere in the rules is it stated that an organisation without a trade
> license is not permitted to offer or accept gifts. Rule 1011 does
> state:
> 
> "If an Organization has a Trade License, that Organization may offer,
> accept, and retract trades on the Free Market, and give gifts."
> 
> This does not however mean that only organizations with trade license
> may do so. I think that the crux of the matter lies in the
> interpretation of the word "if". If you have a sentence reading:
> 
> "If an object is red then it is not black"
> 
> Then this does not mean that the only objects which are not black are
> red.
> 

- --------
[email-masked]

yip yip yip yap yap yak yap yip *BANG*  -- no terrier

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 20:49:23 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC for orgs

>I quite like this. I like the idea of shares in a company, and I think
>that the idea of limiting each player to one church makes sense. I'd
>split up into four groups like you said and would have different
>organizational powers for each one (except for social groups which
>wouldn't have any). Most of the current powers would be for
>corporations. I would also forbid churches and political parties from
	Actually, the only remaining powers are labs and more than human.
I think more than human best belongs with religions, and labs we agree
belong with corporations.

>owning anything except for trinkets and acka-dollars. To set up a
>political party you would have to pay to the senate however much a big
>tent currently costs. To set up a church you have to build a church
>building and to set up a corporation you have to pay the treasury to
	I don't think political parties should own anything.  How about
religions can only own gift items and those items which the rules say they
can own elsewhere.  (Just in case someone thinks of another thing they
should own.)

>create at least 100 shares worth at least A$3 each. These shares could
>then be sold on for whatever price people were willing to pay. If the
>org disbands all owners of shares get back the amount that they were
>initially worth from the treasury. No corporation may own shares in
>another corporation. To get an action through in a corporation, the
>owner(s) of at least half the shares must support it. All organisations
>must consist of at least two players. Or something like that anyway...
	I'd feel more comfortable mandating that all corps. have exactly
100 shares.  They way it see it working is that the creating player pays an
incorporation fee of (for example) A$50.  That player then recieves 100
shares in the corporation.  The shares may be sold for whatever the market
bears.  Each corporation has a charter, which specifies how its properties
a split up when it ends.  Any properties not accounted for in the charter
are given to the treasury.  I think corporations should be able to own
shares in other corporations, and we should have provisions for mergers.
	As an alternative method for shares, we could have something more
realistic, where a corporation has as many shares as it wants, and can do
things like buy and sell its own shares, and create new ones.  In that case
we would also make corps have a board of directors elected bi-monthly by
the shareholders.  Which way do people prefer?  (Or another way altogether)

- --
Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio

- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the
follies of one's own times.  The ability to change one's own times is the
true test of a leader.  And the ability to do both is the true test of a
visionary who will never be elected."
	-Marilyn vos Savant

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 21:03:16 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CSR 123

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > There was only one objection to this CSR within 3 days, so it is now
> > enacted.
> 
> Damn. I've been too busy lately, else I probably would have submitted
> the second objection.
> 
> This also happens, unfortunately, since Proposal 2492 also fixed
> this. 'which' is now preceded by two open parentheses.
> 
> breadbox
> 

Doh.  I guess I'll have to fix that next time I hapen to wander through
the Blueprints suite.  In other news, I'm taking a stab at the Games and
Contests suite right now.  If anyone knows of outstanding problems in this
part of the rules (or any other), that you don't think merit a proposal,
let me know and I'll try to get them into the next CSR.

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]              [email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 21:19:33 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: actions

I join the church YAT#1.
I join the church YAT#2.
I join the church YAT#3.
I join the church YAT#4.
I join the church YAT#5.
I join the church YAT#6.
I join the church YAT#7.
I join the church YAT#8.
I join the church YAT#9.
I join the church YAT#10.
I join the church YAT#11.
I join the church YAT#12.
I join the church YAT#13.
I join the church YAT#14.
I join the church YAT#15.
I join the church YAT#16.
I join the church YAT#17.
I join the church YAT#18.
I join the church YAT#19.
I join the church YAT#20.
I join the church YAT#21.
I join the church YAT#22.
I join the church YAT#23.
I join the church YAT#24.
I join the church YAT#25.
I join the church YAT#26.
I join the church YAT#27.
I join the church YAT#28.
I join the church YAT#29.
I join the church YAT#30.
I join the church YAT#31.
I join the church YAT#32.
I join the church YAT#33.
I join the church YAT#34.
I join the church YAT#35.
I join the church YAT#36.
I join the church YAT#37.
I join the church YAT#38.
I join the church YAT#39.
I join the church YAT#40.
I join the church YAT#41.
I join the church YAT#42.
I join the church YAT#43.
I join the church YAT#44.
I join the church YAT#45.
I join the church YAT#46.
I join the church YAT#47.
I join the church YAT#48.
I join the church YAT#49.
I join the church YAT#50.
I join the church YAT#51.
I join the church YAT#52.
I join the church YAT#53.
I join the church YAT#54.
I join the church YAT#55.
I join the church YAT#56.
I join the church YAT#57.
I join the church YAT#58.
I join the church YAT#59.
I join the church YAT#60.
I join the church YAT#61.
I join the church YAT#62.
I join the church YAT#63.
I join the church YAT#64.
I join the church YAT#65.
I join the church YAT#66.
I join the church YAT#67.
I join the church YAT#68.
I join the church YAT#69.
I join the church YAT#70.
I join the church YAT#71.
I join the church YAT#72.
I join the church YAT#73.
I join the church YAT#74.
I join the church YAT#75.
I join the church YAT#76.
I join the church YAT#77.
I join the church YAT#78.
I join the church YAT#79.
I join the church YAT#80.
I join the church YAT#81.
I join the church YAT#82.
I join the church YAT#83.
I join the church YAT#84.
I join the church YAT#85.
I join the church YAT#86.
I join the church YAT#87.
I join the church YAT#88.
I join the church YAT#89.
I join the church YAT#90.
I join the church YAT#91.
I join the church YAT#92.
I join the church YAT#93.
I join the church YAT#94.
I join the church YAT#95.
I join the church YAT#96.
I join the church YAT#97.
I join the church YAT#98.
I join the church YAT#99.
I join the church YAT#100.

Should any of these churches not exist, I do not attempt to join them.
rufus

- --------
[email-masked]

yip yip yip yap yap yak yap yip *BANG*  -- no terrier

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 21:35:41 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> I plan on resubmitting my proposal about RFCs, hopefully modified to
> such an extent that the obvious scam (I can't believe I didn't see
> that) is eliminated. Is there anything else that needs doing to it, and
> would you vote for it if I get it right?
> 
> 
> If a player makes a request for comment (labeled as such or otherwise)
> on an action which has never been previously performed no other player
> may take action to perform the material discussed therein within the
> next eight days, unless the first player either leaves the game or
> publicly posts that they don't mind this being done. If a player
> attempts to submit a proposal that does so then the proposal is
> invalid. Any other actions which are attempted that do so simply do not
> happen. If the RFC concerns something which can only be done for a
> limited period of time, such as voting on a particular proposal, and
> the time period involved for this action is fewer than ten days then
> this rule has no effect. [As well as the obvious, this also allows
> enough time for a loop-hole to be shut by making a request for comment
> on whether to exploit the loophole and then submitting a proposal to
> close the loophole.]
> 

Ooh, ooh, let me try on this one...

RFC: I am going to win Cycle 18.

I'm afraid that this is a problem that really can't be fixed through
legislation.  We can call people who stal other's ideas dirty
rat-bastards, if you like.  Actually, some sort of dirt rat-bastard
Hearing, with a resultant loss of points, might be a more practical way of
addressing this issue.  Feel free to use my idea if you like it, by the
way. :)

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 02:31:32 -0000
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 485 Verdict

> We're all out to get you Slakko.  Soon you will see the light, and become
> one of us.  In the meantime, however, do keep in mind that most of the
> activity in Acka does tend to happen during daylight hours in the U.S. 
At
> the moment, I'm not sure if anyone except you and Nicolo live outside
> North America, although there have certainly been plenty of Acka players
> from Great Britain.

Well, I'm in Scotland.
That's certainly outside North America, and is also part of Great Britain,
although I'm sure we can fix that soon ;-).
> 
>                           - Vynd, wondering why he is up at 3:20 am

I know that feeling...

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 21:38:11 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: actions

>I join the church YAT#1.
>Should any of these churches not exist, I do not attempt to join them.
	 I'm not sure that'll do it.  The idea is that three people have to
be my "followers."  None of the churches exist yet.  Regardless, expressing
your intent to be a member should be sufficient.

- --
Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio

- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the
follies of one's own times.  The ability to change one's own times is the
true test of a leader.  And the ability to do both is the true test of a
visionary who will never be elected."
	-Marilyn vos Savant

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #416
*******************************