Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #319
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Monday, September 14 1998      Volume 03 : Number 319

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:23:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Oh, not much

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

:> The only way to answer the sin of 360, without further information, is
:> .956.
:
:I still don't hold with this. If I were to ask someone what time it was and they
Which in no way affects the truth value of the statement.  

:replied "twelve" then I would no that they actually meant twelve O'Clock; twelve hours
:into the day. I would know this even though I was not explicitly told it. They could
No, you only think you know it.  It might even be true.  I however, am 
distinctly not in the mood to argue epistemology.

sin(googleplex) is a complete and unambigous statement, as it stands,
requiring the neither  the addition of nor the removal of any information
to cause it to make sense.  I fail to see why it is more reasonable to
assume that "in grads" or "in  degs" should be be tacked on.  

rufus

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:39:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Oh, not much

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

:> the sine of that number in radians.  This is a _mathematical_fact_.
:
:True. However:
:
:1. (As Robin Hood Pointed out) popularly it is more likely to have a different
:meaning.
:2. Ackan maths is not the same as real life maths. x/0=0 is Acka maths but not
:real maths by any stretch of the imagination. I'd be willing to bet that
:introducing that into mathematics would create some quite large inconsistencies.

You can build systems in which division iby zero is allowed.  You do have
some strange side effects, like the loss of transivity.  I don't know
exactly what happens, as it was never really one of my things.  One of my
math profs was doing some work in such a system;  he tried explaining it
me I was lost within the minute.  

:You could know everything in the world about standard mathematics but Acka maths
:is liekly completely different, possibly beeing governedonly by convention. If
:that is the case then I don't think radians would hold as the most common
:convention.
division by zero is explicitly defined by the rules.  I don't find
anything about any trig in the rules.  That being the case, I see two
choices that are rational.  The first is to do math the way we do it in
real life, except with n/0 defined to 0.  The other is to find a system in
which division by zero is defined, and use it, with all the crazyness that
ensues.  Since we don't seem to be doing the second,  we must be doing the
first.  In this case the sine of a number is the sign of that number
modulo 2pi.  If you don't like it, then get people to change it.  

rufus, who would ditch 340 VI in a second

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:44:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Oh, not much

David Scheidt wrote:

> sin(googleplex) is a complete and unambigous statement, as it stands,
> requiring the neither  the addition of nor the removal of any information
> to cause it to make sense.  I fail to see why it is more reasonable to
> assume that "in grads" or "in  degs" should be be tacked on.

That simply isn't true. It is not an unambiguous statment otherwise we wouldn't be arguing
about it now :-). To make it an unambiguous statement (or as close to unambiguous as you
can reasonably get) you would need to state explicitly "radians", "degrees" or "grads".
This does not do so and so is ambiguous. Although I would probably interpret an angle
without a unit as radians (being a reasonably maths oriented person myself) I am aware that
this is not the only interpretation. A layman with only a small amount of mathematical
training would interpret it as degrees. If you had an expression sucjh as sin 360 the most
reasonable interpretation woulld be sine of 360 degrees, and no matter what anyone else
claims I think they probably would too. Equally I would interpret sin 2(pi) as the sine of
(pi) radians. This is because it is the reasonable assumption that makes more sense than
the other options. In the same way the sine of a googleplex radians makes no sense because
it is impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy.

MTM.

- --
Tom Walmsley [email-masked]
http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html
AIM: TGW666 ICQ 2925739
Bonvolu alsendi la pordiston, lausajne estas rano en mia bideo.

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:57:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Oh, not much

David Scheidt wrote:

> division by zero is explicitly defined by the rules.  I don't find
> anything about any trig in the rules.  That being the case, I see two
> choices that are rational.  The first is to do math the way we do it in
> real life, except with n/0 defined to 0.  The other is to find a system in
> which division by zero is defined, and use it, with all the crazyness that
> ensues.  Since we don't seem to be doing the second,  we must be doing the
> first.  In this case the sine of a number is the sign of that number
> modulo 2pi.  If you don't like it, then get people to change it.

I don't buy this either. The whole idea behind mathematics is that you start with a
few apparently self evident axioms and then build the rest of the system around it.
You can't just build a system and then change bits of it when they don't suit you. It
just doesn't work. The only reason I've not complained about AckaMaths not being
followed is that I haven't a clue what the system should look like. I firmly believe
that what we believe is maths is only convention though. Therefore if we're going on
game custom then convention should dictate for this too and I believe sensible
convention dictates not radians, or if we go on the actual text of the rules the game
is quite possibly unplayable, or at least very different to how we think it is.
Neither option overly appeals to me.

> rufus, who would ditch 340 VI in a second

Well there I agree with you.

MTM.

- --
Tom Walmsley [email-masked]
http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html
AIM: TGW666 ICQ 2925739
Bonvolu alsendi la pordiston, lausajne estas rano en mia bideo.

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:00:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Oh, not much

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> 
> 
> David Scheidt wrote:
> 
> > sin(googleplex) is a complete and unambigous statement, as it stands,
> > requiring the neither  the addition of nor the removal of any information
> > to cause it to make sense.  I fail to see why it is more reasonable to
> > assume that "in grads" or "in  degs" should be be tacked on.
> 
> That simply isn't true. It is not an unambiguous statment otherwise we wouldn't be arguing
> about it now :-). To make it an unambiguous statement (or as close to unambiguous as you
> can reasonably get) you would need to state explicitly "radians", "degrees" or "grads".
> This does not do so and so is ambiguous. Although I would probably interpret an angle
> without a unit as radians (being a reasonably maths oriented person myself) I am aware that
> this is not the only interpretation. A layman with only a small amount of mathematical
> training would interpret it as degrees. If you had an expression sucjh as sin 360 the most
> reasonable interpretation woulld be sine of 360 degrees, and no matter what anyone else
> claims I think they probably would too. Equally I would interpret sin 2(pi) as the sine of
> (pi) radians. This is because it is the reasonable assumption that makes more sense than
> the other options. In the same way the sine of a googleplex radians makes no sense because
> it is impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy.
> 
> MTM.

Your first sentence is wrong.  In mathematics (I'm certain I learnt this
during or prior to first year university) the sine of a number is equal to
the sine of that many radians.

There are in fact mathematical identities which link these values to the
sum of an infinite series (which always converges).  A page with some
common series of this type (which include MacLaurin series) is at
http://iq.orst.edu/mathsg/SandS/PowerSeries/mclaurin_list.html

You will notice that these formulae do not mention anything about units.
sin(x) is the sine of the number x.  No more, no less, no different.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:01:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Oh, not much

>However, from a mathematical point of view, an integer is a radian
>measurement.  The hat only specified an integer, and hence, by default,
>the measurement is in radians.
>Just because the hat is unreasonable does not mean you can change what it
>means slightly to make it more reasonable.

>Look. I have a degree in mathematics. The sine of a number is actually 
>the sine of that number in radians. This is a _mathematical_fact_.

As MTM said, where in the rules does it say that Acka follows mathematical
fact? (or any kind of fact, for that matter?)  I agree that when a
_mathmatician_ talks about an angle without specifying units, e's usually
talking about radians.  However, when a layman talks about an angle,
generally e's talking about degrees.  I know my parents do that.  And the
same goes for when a surveyor is talking about an angle.  He'll probably be
talking about grads.  Acka does _not_ focus s exclusively on mathematics
that any ambiguous term should be taken to have the mathematics-driven
meaning.  If we were following real world _fact_, our cubical world would
have many problems.  We follow rule defined fact.  And where the rules fail
to define _fact_, we must apply the most reasonable standard.  Here that
would be to apply what you admit is more reasonable, by taking the angle in
degrees or grads.  If you were thinking linearly in terms of the language
of mathematics when you bid an extremely low figure on the eggplant, you
have no one to blame but yourself.

- -Weishaupt
 Really Weird, Crazy French-Scotsman

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:06:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Oh, not much

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> 
> 
> David Scheidt wrote:
> 
> 
> > division by zero is explicitly defined by the rules.  I don't find
> > anything about any trig in the rules.  That being the case, I see two
> > choices that are rational.  The first is to do math the way we do it in
> > real life, except with n/0 defined to 0.  The other is to find a system in
> > which division by zero is defined, and use it, with all the crazyness that
> > ensues.  Since we don't seem to be doing the second,  we must be doing the
> > first.  In this case the sine of a number is the sign of that number
> > modulo 2pi.  If you don't like it, then get people to change it.
> 
> I don't buy this either. The whole idea behind mathematics is that you start with a
> few apparently self evident axioms and then build the rest of the system around it.
> You can't just build a system and then change bits of it when they don't suit you. It
> just doesn't work. The only reason I've not complained about AckaMaths not being
> followed is that I haven't a clue what the system should look like. I firmly believe
> that what we believe is maths is only convention though. Therefore if we're going on
> game custom then convention should dictate for this too and I believe sensible
> convention dictates not radians, or if we go on the actual text of the rules the game
> is quite possibly unplayable, or at least very different to how we think it is.
> Neither option overly appeals to me.

Well, unless you can prove that, if division by zero gives zero, e^(90i)
equals 1, then it shouldn't be degrees either.

e^(ix) = sin x.  That's the _number_ x.
Either prove that this works differently when division by zero results in
zero, or accept it as the actual result, in which case the sine of a
googolplex is equal to the sine of a googolplex radians.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:16:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Oh, not much

Duncan Richer wrote:

> Your first sentence is wrong.  In mathematics (I'm certain I learnt this
> during or prior to first year university) the sine of a number is equal to
> the sine of that many radians.
>
> There are in fact mathematical identities which link these values to the
> sum of an infinite series (which always converges).  A page with some
> common series of this type (which include MacLaurin series) is at
> http://iq.orst.edu/mathsg/SandS/PowerSeries/mclaurin_list.html
>
> You will notice that these formulae do not mention anything about units.
> sin(x) is the sine of the number x.  No more, no less, no different.

It was most likely prior because I have come across that sort of thing already and I am pre
university level. However just because formal mathematics defines something one way does not mean
it is the only interpretation. That is the main point I am trying to make here. I *know* that
according to formal mathematics sin(x) is the sine of x radians but we don't operate according to
formal maths here. 340 VI is the best example of that. I would actually be willing to bet that
what passes for Acka's number system does not pass for any consistent formal system. That is why
formal maths need not apply.

MTM.

- --
Tom Walmsley [email-masked]
http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html
AIM: TGW666 ICQ 2925739
Bonvolu alsendi la pordiston, lausajne estas rano en mia bideo.

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:18:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Oh, not much

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:

> >However, from a mathematical point of view, an integer is a radian
> >measurement.  The hat only specified an integer, and hence, by default,
> >the measurement is in radians.
> >Just because the hat is unreasonable does not mean you can change what it
> >means slightly to make it more reasonable.
> 
> >Look. I have a degree in mathematics. The sine of a number is actually 
> >the sine of that number in radians. This is a _mathematical_fact_.
> 
> As MTM said, where in the rules does it say that Acka follows mathematical
> fact? (or any kind of fact, for that matter?)  I agree that when a
> _mathmatician_ talks about an angle without specifying units, e's usually
> talking about radians.  However, when a layman talks about an angle,
> generally e's talking about degrees.  I know my parents do that.  And the
> same goes for when a surveyor is talking about an angle.  He'll probably be
> talking about grads.  Acka does _not_ focus s exclusively on mathematics
> that any ambiguous term should be taken to have the mathematics-driven
> meaning.  If we were following real world _fact_, our cubical world would
> have many problems.  We follow rule defined fact.  And where the rules fail
> to define _fact_, we must apply the most reasonable standard.  Here that
> would be to apply what you admit is more reasonable, by taking the angle in
> degrees or grads.  If you were thinking linearly in terms of the language
> of mathematics when you bid an extremely low figure on the eggplant, you
> have no one to blame but yourself.

It is not a question of saying "which units".  Numbers can be sined.  It
just happens that when you take the sine of a number, you get the same
result as when you take the sine of that number of radians.  That
(obviously) doesn't always happen with degrees or grads.

The Agenda Hat said "sine of a googolplex".  No units were given.
It is possible to take the sine of a number.
Therefore, the simplest interpretation, the one that avoids making any
extra assumptions about what units we are using, is the one that says that
we want the result of applying the "sine" function to the number
"googolplex".

Just so happens that's equal to the sine of a googolplex radians, but
that's actually irrelevant to the discussion.
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:23:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Oh, not much

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

:
:It is not a question of saying "which units".  Numbers can be sined.  It
:just happens that when you take the sine of a number, you get the same
:result as when you take the sine of that number of radians.  That
:(obviously) doesn't always happen with degrees or grads.

That is definition.  Thimk about the unit circle.

ruufs

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:26:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Oh, not much

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> 
> 
> Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> 
> > Your first sentence is wrong.  In mathematics (I'm certain I learnt this
> > during or prior to first year university) the sine of a number is equal to
> > the sine of that many radians.
> >
> > There are in fact mathematical identities which link these values to the
> > sum of an infinite series (which always converges).  A page with some
> > common series of this type (which include MacLaurin series) is at
> > http://iq.orst.edu/mathsg/SandS/PowerSeries/mclaurin_list.html
> >
> > You will notice that these formulae do not mention anything about units.
> > sin(x) is the sine of the number x.  No more, no less, no different.
> 
> It was most likely prior because I have come across that sort of thing already and I am pre
> university level. However just because formal mathematics defines something one way does not mean
> it is the only interpretation. That is the main point I am trying to make here. I *know* that
> according to formal mathematics sin(x) is the sine of x radians but we don't operate according to
> formal maths here. 340 VI is the best example of that. I would actually be willing to bet that
> what passes for Acka's number system does not pass for any consistent formal system. That is why
> formal maths need not apply.

If the system is not consistent, then everything is TRUE and FALSE at the
same time.  So any proof has an equal and opposite disproof.  That's going
to make finding sufficient evidence to prove one value to be the sine of a
googolplex impossible (as it both is and isn't at the same time).

I'd rather say that, unless the rules directly imply otherwise,
mathematical truth in reality works in Ackanomic.  Otherwise it would just
do everyone's head in.

- -- 
Duncan C. "Scores if we didn't have Peano arithmetic?" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:33:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Oh, not much

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> :
> :It is not a question of saying "which units".  Numbers can be sined.  It
> :just happens that when you take the sine of a number, you get the same
> :result as when you take the sine of that number of radians.  That
> :(obviously) doesn't always happen with degrees or grads.
> 
> That is definition.  Thimk about the unit circle.

I know that.  I'm just trying to point out that thinking in terms of
radians is unnecessary to all these "degrees" supporters.  The number
itself is sineable, as you know.

- -- 
Duncan C. "sineable?" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:27:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 655 (JT)

Verdict: TRUE

Reasoning:
As Breadnbox stated in his reasoning, if CFJ654 is FALSE, then this
is certainly TRUE.
Therefore I only need to concern myself with what happens if CFJ654 is
ruled TRUE.

If CFJ654 is ruled true, then there is (or was at the time) no current 
government of ackanomic.

In the original proposal (which is what was in effect at the time this
CFj was submitted), we find the following text

>If no Government Type is Active then the Government Type Anarchy (if it
>exists) becomes Active.

This certainly allows no government type to exist since by the assumption
of CFJ654 being ruled true, there could have been no government type of
Anarchy.

Looking down further
>Governmental Rules should specify who is eligible to vote on proposals
>(if it fails then all active voting players may vote)...

This could be read that if a government rule fails to specify who may vote
then all active voting players may vote.

It is certainly true that if there is no government, then the rules for
the current government type (none) fail to specify who may vote, and
therefore all active voting players may indeed vote.

Therefore breadbox in particular is elegible vote.

and therefore, the statement in this CFJ is TRUE.

- --JT

>Call for Judgement 655 - September 4, 1998
>Subject: Voting Eligibility
>Initiator: breadbox (sent Sep 4 1998, 12:02 Acka)
>1st Judge: Rig R. Mortis (chosen Sep 4 1998, 12:29 Acka) (declined)
>2nd Judge: two-star (chosen Sep 7 1998, 08:06 Acka) (deadbeat)
>3rd Judge: JT
>Judgement:
>
>Statement:
>
>breadbox is eligible to vote on proposals.
>
>Reasoning:
>
>If my other CFJ is ruled False, then this CFJ must almost certainly be
>True. So, assuming the truth of the statement "There is no Current
>Government of Ackanomia", where does that leave me?
>
>Rule 106 only states how the players that are eligible to vote on
>proposals may do so. (Though note that Voting Players are specifically
>permitted to abstain.) And who is eligible to vote? It is nowhere
>specified in the rules. Rule 320 specifies no provisions for the
>situation when there is no Current Government and Anarchy is not an
>existing Government Type.
>
>The fact that I was eligible to vote before Proposal 3495 was adopted
>doesn't help. Suffrage is not an entity; it is not guaranteed to
>continue existing when the rules that granted it are removed.
>
>Nor can we fall back on "permissibility of the unprohibited", since
>the right to vote is clearly still regulated by Rule 106.
>
>The only conclusion I can come to is that no players have been granted
>the ability to vote on proposals at this time.
>
>
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:01:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: *ping*

Today is Monday, the 14th day of September, and the Machine That Goes
*ping* Has Gone *ping* today. Since I have been scholar, the Machine has
gone *ping* 5 times.

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:44:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Head Apollo" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: In Valen's Name!

>I voted against it because I am tired of the attempts to bring unnatural
>disasters upon Ackanomic.  Sheesh, some of you must be the type who build
>up a good, full city in Sim City but with minimal fire protection, then hit
>the disasters menu and summon all the disasters upon your city all at once!
>
>Also, I thought it was a bit too much of a take-off on the old Codex of
Kra.
>
>/dev/joe
>

Take that Bowl-A-Rama! Take that Convenience Mart!! Take that Nuclear Power
Plant!!!

... what?

Eris

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:45:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Head Apollo" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: INP 383

As the newly appointed Ambassador it is my duty to call a hearing on the
following Internomic Proposal (383). The valid responses in this hearing are
"for" and "against". Send your responses to me, the Hearing Harfer, within
the next seven days.

Eris (Ambassador)

- ---

INP 383

submitted by Agora:

>>
Amend Rule 215 by removing the string "Thring,".
<<

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

The submitter added the following comments:

Let me add that this was suggested by the last Thring liaison emself
in a recent mail:
>>

as (former?) liaison for Thring I thought I would mention that it is
pretty much dead and there would be little objection from its removal from
the list of voting members. Also, if someone would enlighten me on how to
unsubscribe this list it would be much appreciated.

Anarchy (ex-thring)
<<

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:10:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Oh, not much

> > I disagree, (i don't have time to write out a detailed argument right now,
> > i will later if need be) and for now only want to point out that Fo has the
> > eggplant associated with this hat, making him the one who bid low on it
> > because he assumed it was radians and him the one who has something to lose.

> Look.  I have a degree in mathematics.  The sine of a number is actually
> the sine of that number in radians.  This is a _mathematical_fact_.

I wasn't with Slakko on the negative prime thing, but I have to agree on
the unspecified-unit-angle-being-radians.  If you have an angle, then if
you take the length of the arc it encloses(probably not the correct word)
on any circle and divide it by the radius of that circle, then you get
the angle in radians.  But properly, you're measuring meters/meters, which
is unitless.  Degrees and grads are mathematical conveniences, but they
are units.

(Trust me, you rarely see degrees from first-year calculus onward...)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/ )
Current Song--Huey Lewis & The News:Bad Is Bad
Current Book--Pamela Dean:Juniper, Gentian & Rosemary
"Larger and more mauve."  --Scott Ellis

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:18:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Warning

Just thought I'd let people know that I am going to be very intermittent
over the next couple of days.  Blame it on a sudden(and blissful)influx of
Babylon 5--"Thirdspace" last week, first episode of season 5 on Saturday,
and weekdaily reruns(starting with the pilot today)of at least the first
four seasons, which come on at 3:00 in the afternoon and so will have to
be taped and watched later...  Also a writers' group meeting tomorrow
night.

Hopefully I won't actually be too delinquent on anything(thinks--have I
moved in the latest round of Viruses?), but I won't be too loud.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/ )
Current Song--Amazulu:The Things The Lonely Do
Current Book--Pamela Dean:Juniper, Gentian & Rosemary
Taking a bath with your toaster.  It's a bad idea.

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:24:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 665 (Robert Sevin)

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Mitchell Harding wrote:

> At 12:47 PM 9/14/98 -0400, you wrote:
> >Robert Sevin has been selected.
> >
> >Call for Judgement 665 - September 14, 1998
> 
> I'd like to decline judgement.
> 
> Hey, I've got a question -- is it considered bad game etiquette to rule on
> a CFJ completely arbitrarily?

I can't tell etiquette from shinola, personally (*spit*).  But I'd say
there's a fair amount of game custom that supports arbitrary judgements. I
can't really recall any recently, but surely a Slumbering Giant such as
yourself can remember the days when CFJs would come back with reasoning
like: I'm judging this TRUE because I'm pretty sure that it is, but I have
a saxophone recital this weekend so I couldn't really check.  So anyway,
enjoy.

Somewhere along the line, people must have decided to take them seriously.
Ah well, at least I can remenisce.

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #319
*******************************