Subject: grammar

From: "RiffRaff" <riff10111@y...>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 23:40:32 -0000

Hello all - sorry I didn't get those boardgame-version rules up yet. 
I'm working on revising them right now, actually, after some 
additional testing. Plus I'm trying to make them readable to people 
who aren't ultra-pedantic rules lawyers. ;)

Which brings me to my question: is it more accurate to say "West 
Acton is served by the Central Line", or "West Acton serves the 
Central Line"?

cheers,
--Riff

---

From: Duncan Ellis <dunx@d...>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 16:46:52 -0700

> who aren't ultra-pedantic rules lawyers. ;)

Apologies also from me for not yet putting up any proposed Section 1 rules. 
Just been, well, busy doing other things.

If anyone else wants to step into the drafting breach, please do so.

> Acton is served by the Central Line", or "West Acton serves the

The former, I would say.

-- 
Dunx
A problem worthy of attack
Proves its worth by fighting back
- Piet Hein

---

From: Paul Wayper <paulway@e...>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:51:19 +1000

At 09:40 AM 6/06/2001, you wrote:
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---

From: Paul Wayper <paulway@e...>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 10:10:32 +1000

>If anyone else wants to step into the drafting breach, please do so.

OK, you've shamed me into it. Here's an email I was drafting some time ago 
on Late shift...

Dunx,

In a bit of time while I studiously avoid looking for things to do, I
thought I might have a go at part of Ruleset 1. Let me know what you
think.

BTW:
* is there something in Ruleset 0 about standard nomenclature for variables 
and expansions - e.g. the use of triangle brackets, square brackets, 
ellipses and so forth in 1.1.1?
* I started adding Game Time into this and then thought 'no, keep it simple 
at first...' Likewise with Action Groups (e.g. Can't play a normal move 
and a wild move same turn: which of these is Turn Unique?)
* Possible confusion between 'Players of Mornington Nomic' and 'Players of 
a Game of Mornington Crescent'?
* Also, after a bit of thought, removed the section on Tokens. Someone can 
hardwire that in later.
* This is only a first approximation, while trying to enable a complete 
game of MC to be played. Therefore there are a few things which I'd want 
to see changed as the ruleset became more complex. But here it is anyway.

Rule 0.x.y - Game Start Proposals

A Game Start Proposal is a valid Proposal type. A Game Start Proposal 
contains the proposed Game's Name, the address of one of the standard email 
lists currently not being used for another Game, and a list of Optional 
Rulesets that will be used for that Game. Voting for a Game Start Proposal 
requires at least three Active Players to vote 'For' it to Pass. {NB: is 
there some official term for that requirement?}

If the Proposal Passes, a new Game is Started by following the procedure in 
Rule 1.1.0. If the Proposal Fails then it is discarded.

Rule 1.0.0 - Mornington Crescent Definitions

This Rule contains an overview of the working of a Game of Mornington Crescent.

A Game of Mornington Crescent is played on a Map. By default, this is the 
map of the London Underground (available at http://url).

Each Game is represented by its Game State Document; this document is the 
total summary of the current state of play of that Game, as well as a 
summary history of play up until that point. Game State Documents are 
contained in emails from the Players in that Game, and Documents posted 
later supersede those posted earlier.

Each Game can be said to be Valid or Invalid. A Valid Game is one in which 
all the play up until that point has abided by the Ruleset or Rulesets that 
applied to that Game at the point of time at which the play was 
made. While a Game is in progress, the Ruleset or Rulesets that apply to 
that Game cannot be changed by ordinary Proposal. If the current state of 
play is such that it contravenes one or more Rules that apply to that Game, 
then the Game is considered to be Invalid and play is returned to the 
historic state that was most recently Valid.

Once a Game has been Started, it also be said to be In Play or 
Won. Winning the Game consists of playing one of the appropriate Winning 
Actions in the Ruleset or Rulesets available for that Game.

Games can be Buzzed by any Player, in order for em to point out an illegal 
move that has made the Game Invalid, by posting a message with the subject 
line containing the word "BUZZ" and pointing out what Rule or Rules have 
been broken. Once a Game has been Buzzed, no further Play is allowed on 
that Game until the question of the Validity of the Game has been sorted 
out to the satisfaction of the Players of that Game.

Some Rules may talk about a Route. This is the path taken along the lines 
of the Map in exactly the same way as a commuter might travel on real 
trains. It moves through each Station consecutively along the Route and 
changes Lines only at Interchanges. A Route cannot include a 'double-back' 
- a change of direction of movement on one line. For instance, moving from 
Euston to Camden Town and back to Mornington Crescent would be considered 
Invalid because of a double-back at Euston.

Rule 1.1.0 - Starting the Game

After a Game Start Proposal is sucessfully Passed, the Game is Started in 
the following manner:

1) The Speaker decides the Number and Name of the Game. The Number of the 
Game is the next available integer higher than any other Started Game at 
that point in time. The Name of the Game is taken from the Name of the 
Proposal, and may be adapted by the Speaker to suit the style of the Game 
being played and in general to make it conform to the aesthetics of 
Mornington Crescent game names.

2) The Speaker then decides the Order of Play. E takes the list of all 
Players who voted For the Proposal to Start the Game and randomly assigns 
them a position in the Order of Play.

3) The Speaker then posts a standard Game State Document, with the Players' 
Holdings listed in by their place in the Order of Play, to the list 
designated for the use of that Game in the Game Start Proposal.

Rule 1.1.1 - To everything, Turn Turn Turn.

Play in a game of Mornington Crescent is broken up into Turns. During each 
Turn, one and only one Player is the Current Player; the other Players are 
Waiting during that Turn. Players follow one another in playing Turns as 
defined in the Order of Play.

A Turn is divided up into three Phases, which follow one another in the 
order: Pre-move, Move, and Post-move. In each of these Phases, zero or 
more Actions can be played; however, a Player must play at least one Action 
in the Move phase of their Turn. Actions are listed in the Player's Turn 
in the order in which they occur in the Turn. A Player's Turn appears in 
the Game State Document as:

<Player's Name> ":" <Action> ([<Action>] ...)

Each Player has a Piece, which represents their location on the Map. In 
particular, it is considered to represent a real person waiting on the 
platform for a train. Thus, a Piece can be said to have both a Station 
location and be 'on' a Line. The Current Player's Piece moves only during 
the Move Phase, although some Actions in other Phases might move other 
Waiting Player's Piece(s).

Rule 1.2.0 - Action and Reaction.

An Action is designated in the Game State Document as the Action Name 
between square brackets - for example, "[Pass]" or "[Shunting PaulWay to 
Shoreditch]". They are the basic unit by which a Player's Turn is 
enacted. Actions have various Attributes which affect how and when they 
may be played:

* Uniqueness: There are four states of Uniqueness: Game, Turn, Phase or 
None. If an Action has no Uniqueness (i.e. its Uniqueness state is None) 
then the Player can play that Action more than once during eir turn if 
desired. Otherwise, the state specifies the period of time that Action is 
Unique for - in other words, the Player can play, at most, one of that 
Action in that period of time. For example, a Game Unique Action (e.g. 
"[Opening MC]") can only be played once per game.

* Phase: An Action has one or more Phases in which it can be played. An 
Action which can be played in more than one Phase can be used in any Phase 
of the Player's Turn. Likewise, the use of a multi-Phase Action in one 
Phase does not preclude its use in another Phase if the Player so desires 
(although still being bound by Uniqueness above).

* Winnitude: When a Winning Action is legally Played, the Game is 
considered to be Won.

Rule 1.2.1 - Premeditation.

The following is a list of valid Pre-move Actions:

* [LV+<x>] (Turn Unique) (Premove/Postmove Phase)

This Action increases the Current Player's LV by <x>.

* [LV-<x>] (Turn Unique) (Premove/Postmove Phase)

This Action decreases the Current Player's LV by <x>.

Rule 1.2.2 - Movement in Still Life.

A Player's Move Phase must contain one and only one Movement Action. The 
following is a list of valid Movement Actions:

* [Moving to <Station>] (Turn Unique) (Move Phase)

This Action moves the Current Player's Piece to the specified 
Station. It is only legal to play a Move Action if the following 
conditions are met:

+ The distance from the Piece to the named Station is equal to the 
Player's LV, by any Route.
+ The route taken does not pass through any Blocked Stations, nor is 
the named Station blocked.

* [Wild to <Station>] (Turn Unique) (Move Phase)

This Action moves the Current Player's Piece directly to the specified 
Station. It is only legal to play a Wild Action if the following 
conditions are met:

+ The Player's Piece is currently no less than three Stations away 
from any other Player's Piece (by any Route).
+ There is no Player's Piece less than three Stations away from the 
specified Station.
+ The specified Station is not less than three Stations away from 
Mornington Crescent.

* [Pass] (Turn Unique) (Move Phase)

This Action leaves the Current Player's Piece where it is, while not 
affecting the Player's LV.

Rule 1.2.3 - Post-Move Stress Disorder.

The following is a list of valid Postmove Actions:

* [Blocking <Station>] (Postmove Phase)

This Action allows the Current Player to block movement to or through 
a Station. If the Player plays more than one Block Action in one Turn, 
their next Turn must include the Movement Action [Pass].

* [Shunting <Player> to <Station>] (Turn Unique) (Postmove Phase)

This Action allows the Current Player to transfer eir LV to another 
player (known as the Shunted Player). The distance from the Current 
Player's Piece to the named Station must be equal to the LV of the Current 
Player. After the Shunt is performed, the Shunted Player's Piece is moved 
to the named Station, the Shunted Player is given the LV of the Current 
Player, and the Current Player's LV is reduced to zero.

* [Opening MC] (Game Unique) (Postmove Phase) (Winning)

This Action allows the Current Player to open Mornington Crescent and 
win the game. It can only be performed as the last Action of a Player's 
Turn, with the Player's Piece resting at Mornington Crescent and no other 
Players' Pieces within three Stations of Mornington Crescent.

OK, I _think_ I've got it all covered, but it's been over four weeks since 
I started writing so there are bound to be holes. But it's a 
start. Likewise, to everyone I would say: please don't let your own 
personal ideas of how MC should be played interfere with getting things 
working. This isn't my idea of how it _should_ be played - that involves 
tokens and game time, among other things. We need to start somewhere, 
however, so here is _a_ somewhere.

Have fun,

Paul

---

From: David Lynch <unrealtor@u...>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 19:10:34 -0500

>Acton is served by the Central Line", or "West Acton serves the

Either the former or "The Central Line serves West Acton." (Depends on 
whether you want passive or active voice.) The second one sounds odd. 
Stations don't usually serve lines.

~ David Lynch ~
~The Crunch That You Crave~
unrealtor@u...

"You have such a nice, soft
buzzer here."
-- Charles Nelson Reilly

---

From: Duncan Ellis <dunx@d...>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:47:01 -0700

> OK, you've shamed me into it. Here's an email I was drafting some time ago

Excellent work, Paul! All very interesting... comments from me later.

---

From: Duncan Ellis <dunx@d...>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:31:43 -0700

Paul:

Thanks for posting this. It's a very nice beginning. It's also considerably
more fresh than what I was planning on doing, so I'll abandon what efforts I
had begun (not that I could remember what I was doing anyway at this remove).

Some comments, of course - many of these are merely pointing out the holes you
mentioned, so apologise if they seem negative.

Onward -

> ellipses and so forth in 1.1.1?

No, but there probably should be. The notation used in Rule 1.1.1 et seq is
something I wouldn't have wanted to define up front, but if it's being used
then it ought to be described.

> a Game of Mornington Crescent'?

That's a distinction I tried to draw in Section 0, and it would be good to
maintain.

> * Also, after a bit of thought, removed the section on Tokens. Someone can

... I understand why you've omitted them, but I'm not sure we can do without
them. Maybe I just need to go cold turkey.

My concern is how the game will play when all a Player has to do to win is
move to MC. I suppose we're getting down to much purer tactics in choosing
starting positions and so on, so it is worth trying a token-less game, just to
see if it works.

> to see changed as the ruleset became more complex. But here it is anyway.

As I say, as first approximations go it's a good one.

> Rule 0.x.y - Game Start Proposals

That's quite a tidy way of doing things, although I'm not sure it's
appropriate.

> Voting for a Game Start Proposal
> requires at least three Active Players to vote 'For' it to Pass.

That's a bit of a tortured sentence. How about:

Enactment of a Game Start Proposal requires a Mandate of at least three
Votes in favour.

I was going to raise the issue of what happens if there are Votes against, or
more specificially more votes against than for, but that's not relevant.

Note that there is no need to specify that Votes be from Active Players
because only Active Players are eleigible to Vote.

> made.

Good definition.

> While a Game is in progress, the Ruleset or Rulesets that apply to
> that Game cannot be changed by ordinary Proposal.

Sneaky putting this in the middle of paragraph on Game validity. :-)

This rule seems superfluous and unhelpful; I can see what you're driving at
(that is, trying to ensure that the rules don't constantly shift for a
particular Game) but the effect once we have multiple Games in play at any
given time will be to prevent change of any rules in common between any of
those games until all games have finished. In particular, the core ruleset
will be impossible to modify while _any_ game is being played. Rather puts the
kibosh on a Long Game.

Maybe that is exactly the effect you were looking for, but it is superfluous
because the Mutability mechanism is intended to do the same job.

What might work better if we wanted to freeze the options and variants during
play would be to specifically exclude the core ruleset from this provision.

The rest of the definitions in thie Rule seem sound.

> Rule 1.1.0 - Starting the Game

Fine. Wording needs tightening ("successfully Passed" is a bit tautological)
but rules themselves look good.

Particular kudos for the term "Holdings", BTW.

> Rule 1.1.1 - To everything, Turn Turn Turn.

Turn and Phase definitions seem sound. Might need to add an explicit forward
reference to say where Actions are defined, though.

> Waiting Player's Piece(s).

Nice analogy (metaphor? Illustration? Never quite sure of the differences...)

I think it's fair enough restricting the Piece to only move under a Player's
control during the Move Phase; in the old ruleset, the major variation on that
behaviour was Straddling which is arguably an aberration anyway.

> * Uniqueness: There are four states of Uniqueness

States of uniqueness? I think scopes or ranges would be clearer.

> (although still being bound by Uniqueness above).

Good wording.

> * Winnitude: When a Winning Action is legally Played, the Game is

True, but I can't quite understand why it's being stated here. Also, is
playing an Action sufficient always? Eg one plays Opening MC, then one moves
to MC: the winning condition is not the playing of the Action, but the
placement of the Piece at the goal station.

> * [LV-<x>] (Turn Unique) (Premove/Postmove Phase)

I'm a little unconvinced by the layout here - first there's the statement that
these are valid pre-move Actions, then the Actions listed are given as being
both Pre- a_and_ Post-Move valid, then these Actions are not listed in the
Post-move enumeration.

Confusing.

I can see what you're aiming for, I think, in saying to Players "these are the
Actions you can play in this Turn Phase", but I'm not sure this Phased
arrangement is workable if any Action can appear in more than one Phase (which
clearly it might, leaving aside the question of whether LV tweaks should be or
not). Maybe I'm just a table addict, but that might be a clearer layout.

LV is never described, though - it's used both here and in the Move Action,
and its meaning might inferred from those usages, but a one paragraph
description would be helpful if only to ensure that everyone's inferrences are
the same.

> the named Station blocked.

There's a problem here in that the definitions earlier stated that Pieces have
both a Station and Line position, but the Move Action takes no account of
that.

I do like this Moving Action though.

> * [Wild to <Station>] (Turn Unique) (Move Phase)

Good clean stuff. There's no tie in between the three station range limit and
LV, though. Indeed, although LV manipulation is described there's no limit on
that manipulation: <x> is mentioned, but could be as large or small as
desired.

I'm reasonably happy that, in these simple rules, there's no specific need to
have defined Wild stations beforehand, but it might make Wild a bit too
powerful not to have them.

> affecting the Player's LV.

Hmm.

> their next Turn must include the Movement Action [Pass].

I'll echo Gunnar's point about how should Stations be unblocked?

> Player, and the Current Player's LV is reduced to zero.

Is the Shuntee's LV unaffected, then? The wording ('transfer eir LV to another
Player') implies that the shunter's LV is added onto that of the shuntee.

> Players' Pieces within three Stations of Mornington Crescent.

Hadn't noticed that proximity condition on first reading; that's probably
sufficient constraint in the first instance.

> however, so here is _a_ somewhere.

I think that's an excellent somewhere.

Thanks again, Paul.

---

From: David Lynch <unrealtor@u...>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 18:17:41 -0500

At 19.10 2001.06.05, PaulWay wrote:
>location and be 'on' a Line.

Nice analogy, but I'd simplify the station/line conundrum to just something 
like "A position is a station on a particular line, either on a train on 
that line stopped at a station or on the platform waiting for a train on 
that line." That handles both both a player changing lines at a station and 
not having enough LV to get as far as e wants go go.

> + The specified Station is not less than three Stations away from

Shouldn't we keep people from wilding to blocked stations?

Also, my thought on another post-move action (inspired by recent situations 
on the LU), which would be new to the ruleset as a whole, but could prove 
of strategic worth:

* [Closing *station* for Interchange] (Turn Unique) (Postmove Phase)

This Action prevents all Players from changing lines at the specified 
Station. A Player may pass through or end their move at that Station when 
it is Closed for Interchange, as long as their departure from the Station 
is on the same Line as their entrance. It is only legal to play a Close for 
Interchange move if the following conditions are met:

+ The Player did not pass through the specified Station during eir turn 
and is not within three stations of the Station.
+ No Player currently occupies the specified Station.
+ No adjacent Stations are blocked.

* [Reopening *station* for Interchange] (Turn Unique) (Postmove Phase)

This action removes the Closure for Interchange of the specified station; 
players may resume using the specified Station to change lines. It is only 
legal to play a Reopen for Interchange move if the following conditions are 
met:

+ The Player did not pass through the specified Station during eir turn 
and is not within three stations of the Station.
+ No Player currently occupies the specified Station.

~ David Lynch ~

---

From: Paul Wayper <paulway@e...>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 21:20:48 +1000

At 07:31 AM 7/06/2001, you wrote:
>Some comments, of course - many of these are merely pointing out the holes 
>you mentioned, so apologise if they seem negative.

No, I don't mind - I'd rather people fixed them than just commented on 
them, but it's a good thing that they're pointed out. I don't consider 
that posting of rules mine any more - it's everyone's now, to shape as we 
wish, until it's good enough to agree on to set in stone.

I also noticed I didn't include a sample of a GSD header.

>then it ought to be described.

I sort of agree; it's one of those tedious things it's good to have out of 
the way so everyone uses a common standard.

>.. I understand why you've omitted them, but I'm not sure we can do without

Well, neither am I to be honest. I wanted to get the basic basic framework 
in place so that we could start building - I got sick of months of 
inactivity while everyone waited for someone else to do the work. I want 
to add Game Time and Tokens in, but this draft was taking place in between 
work and I just didn't have the headspace to do it.

>starting positions and so on, so it is worth trying a token-less game, just to

My concept of play at the moment is pure position - sure, first person to 
MC, but all you have to do is start three stations or less away from MC and 
you've got a one-shot win covered. Then it becomes real all-in wrasslin' 
action. Not that I like that idea - I like the quest for tokens to govern 
who's able/likely to win. But it was a start.

> Enactment of a Game Start Proposal requires a Mandate of at least three

That was the word. Mandate. I was drafting it entirely without reference 
to Ruleset 0, BTW.

>will be impossible to modify while _any_ game is being played. Rather puts the

Not necessarily. I'm envisioning two things here: firstly, games getting 
killed off (if necessary) or people racking up proposals on a currently 
frozen bit of ruleset when problems are identified. The "live with it" 
approach. Secondly, the fundamental game mechanisms should be a small 
capsule that is then expanded on by other rulesets - those expansions would 
be what gives games flavour and, since only those expansions would be 
frozen, others could be worked on while a game was still in play. Consider 
having Chalk Farm 84 v1.0 and Chalk Farm 84 v1.2 rulesets...

However, maybe it doesn't need to be that way. I don't have any particular 
attachment to it - it just seemed like a good idea at the time. And, 
amusingly, I've covered the possibility of change in the previous paragraph 
anyway...

>because the Mutability mechanism is intended to do the same job.

Go Mutability, I think.

>behaviour was Straddling which is arguably an aberration anyway.

No; what about Shunting? Surely that is a move of a Waiting Player's Piece 
not during the owner's Turn?

>States of uniqueness? I think scopes or ranges would be clearer.

Scopes.

>placement of the Piece at the goal station.

True enough. I like the idea of Actions having 'flags'. Either way, we 
need a place where winning is defined.

>both Pre- a_and_ Post-Move valid, then these Actions are not listed in the

True. Hmmmm. I originally thought they would only be premove actions, and 
then I realised I didn't have an example of a multi-phased action, so I 
modified them. What I want to get to is a table viz:

Action | Phs | Uniq | W | Rule
------------+-----+------+---+---------
[LV+x] | 1 3 | Turn | | 1....

>not). Maybe I'm just a table addict, but that might be a clearer layout.

Likewise. What I want is a table with the Actions compiled for easy 
reference and then the descriptions and rules governing each one arranged 
somewhere else more appropriate and useable.

>description would be helpful if only to ensure that everyone's inferrences are

Good point. Needs adding.

>both a Station and Line position, but the Move Action takes no account of

Good point. What do we want to do about that? I like the idea of having a 
cost to change lines (my preference is for a time cost - 5 minutes extra 
per line change: that's how long it can take to move to a different 
platform at an interchange - over a token cost) but that doesn't fit in 
this current ruleset.

>I do like this Moving Action though.

So do I. Thank you, oh Seller of Snow, for thinking of it first!

>that manipulation: <x> is mentioned, but could be as large or small as

Gadzooks, I had just assumed a maximum of 3 increments/decrements. Amazing 
how paradigms shape you, eh?

>Hmm.

Well, while I agree with the idea of having a Passed player's LV drop to 
zero, I also couldn't think of a good reason why not to just leave it as it 
is - a Pass as a 'null move', rather than a 'full stop', if you will.

>Player') implies that the shunter's LV is added onto that of the shuntee.

Transfer, not add: Dunx (LV 5) shunts PaulWay (LV 2). PaulWay gets LV 5, 
Dunx gets LV 0. Dunx could protect himself with a block...

HTH,

Paul

---

From: "Ole Andersen" <palnatoke@g...>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 13:43:38 +0200

...
: >I think it's fair enough restricting the Piece to only move under a Player's
: >control during the Move Phase; in the old ruleset, the major variation on that
: >behaviour was Straddling which is arguably an aberration anyway.
: 
: No; what about Shunting? Surely that is a move of a Waiting Player's Piece 
: not during the owner's Turn?

No contradiction here. Being Shunted is not under the owning Player's control.

...
: >LV is never described, though - it's used both here and in the Move Action,
: >and its meaning might inferred from those usages, but a one paragraph
: >description would be helpful if only to ensure that everyone's inferrences are
: >the same.
: 
: Good point. Needs adding.

Age-old grump vs. LV:

Is it the velocity of the line?

Ole

---

From: Paul Wayper <paulway@e...>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 08:30:54 +1000

>Is it the velocity of the line?

My way of looking it is that LV is your (i.e. your Piece's) velocity on the 
line. The practical definition is it's the number of stations you can move 
through and come to rest at.

Make sense?

Paul

---

From: Duncan Ellis <dunx@d...>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 15:42:31 -0700

> through and come to rest at.

Line Velocity is, as Paul says, your Piece's velocity on the line, just as 
road velocity would be a car's velocity on the road or muzzle velocity is the 
speet of a bullet as it leaves the muzzle of a gun.

The actual term 'Line Velocity' has been around a long time, certainly longer 
than I've been playing MC.

---

From: "Ole Andersen" <palnatoke@g...>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 04:49:33 +0200

: Line Velocity is, as Paul says, your Piece's velocity on the line, just as 
: road velocity would be a car's velocity on the road or muzzle velocity isthe 
: speet of a bullet as it leaves the muzzle of a gun.
: 
: The actual term 'Line Velocity' has been around a long time, certainly longer 
: than I've been playing MC.
: 

It does make sense - and I guess the antiquity of the expression wins out.

Is it an original ISIHAC term?

Ole

---

From: Paul Wayper <paulway@e...>
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 04:53:48 +1000

>Is it an original ISIHAC term?

No, I don't think so. ISIHAC is primarily a verbal medium and, as such, 
has very few instances of play being more elaborate than saying the station 
name. Occasionally someone will say "It's inverse" or "I see" but I've 
never heard anyone even mention a manoeuvre name (although I have only 
heard a fraction of ISIHAC's total output). It probably comes from Delphi 
and/or York, and might even come from Mono or A.G.M.C. if you looked hard 
enough.

It's been used three times; it's traditional now. :-)

Paul

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 21:04:20 +0100

PaulWay said:
> I started writing so there are bound to be holes.

Looks good. I haven't time to study it in detail, but a surface scan didn't
show any problems.

--
Snow

"most Java developers are more interested in creating a great looking object
interface than a user interface"
-Malcolm Davis

---

From: Duncan Ellis <dunx@d...>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 07:41:37 -0700

On Saturday 09 June 2001 13:04, you wrote:
> "most Java developers are more interested in creating a great looking
> object interface than a user interface"
> -Malcolm Davis

I don't know who Malcolm Davies is, but he's got his head screwed on. I've 
been guilty of just this kind of user-hostile behaviour in the past, and it's 
an evil thing to do.