Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Daniel Boese

unread,
Aug 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/4/98
to

(I posted this last Thursday, but my local server lost its newsfeed for a
while. If this shows up twice, my apologies.


As I'm sure a number of you know, a new science-fiction game is coming
out this fall. "Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri - A Brian Reynolds Design" is a
turn-based strategy game detailing the future history of a colonization
mission to Alpha Centauri, which has an accident along the way; the crew
breaks up into competing factions.

Brian Reynolds has posted some detailed data about this fictional Alpha
Centauri planetary system to the forums at www.alphacentauri.com. However,
as they're buried among thousands of other messages, I've collected the
pertinent data, and am posting it here to promote interest in the game and
discussion about the specifics.

-----

The planet will mostly be referred to in the game as "Planet",
although its astronomical name is Chiron. Its two moons are Nessus and
Pholus. For reasons involving stability of orbits in binary systems,
there is only one other planet, Eurytion, which is more or less like
Mercury. Alpha Centauri B (the K-class twin star) has one Jovian
planet.

Atmosphere has a much higher Nitrogen (N2) partial pressure than Earth
(2.02 ratio), w/ Oxygen .71 compared to Earth, CO2 .67 ratio, argon
1.06 ratio and total air pressure 1.74 atmospheres. So it's fine for
earth plants (and the abundant nitrates in the soil help a great
deal), but nitrogen narcosis problems prevent direct breathability by
humans.
The much higher nitrogen partial pressure (and resulting lower oxygen
partial pressure) will tend to make things like forest fires
considerably less likely.

-----

PLANETS OF ALPHA CENTAURI A
===========================


Solar constants Sun Alpha A Ratio
Mass kg 1.99E+30 2.15E+30 1.08
Luminosity W 3.89E+26 5.63E+26 1.45
Radius m 6.96E+08 7.59E+08 1.09


Planetary constants Earth Planet/ Ratio
Chiron

Mass kg 5.98E+24 1.10E+25 1.84
Equat. radius m 6.38E+06 7.54E+06 1.18
Dist. from star m 1.50E+11 1.60E+11 1.07
Axial tilt degrees 23.45 2.00 0.09
Surface area m^2 5.10E+14 7.18E+14 1.41
Standard gravity m/(s^2) 9.81 12.85 1.31
Escape velocity m/s 11184 13947 1.25
Density kg/(m^3) 5519 6150 1.11
Size of sun degrees 0.27 0.27 1.02
Year our days 365.3 388.6 1.06
Year local days 365.3 532.0 1.46
Day hours 24.00 17.53 0.73
Mountain height m 10626 8112 0.76
Horizon distance m 5051 5493 1.09
Ocean tide (sun) m 0.12 0.12 0.94
Ocean tide (moon 1) m 0.27 0.18 0.67
Ocean tide (moon 2) m 0.11
Ocean tide (both) m 0.39 0.41 1.05
Orbital Circumfrnce m 9.42E+11 1.01E+12 1.07
Orbital Speed m/s 29861 29942 1.00

Atmosphere

Total pressure Pa 101325 176020 1.74
Nitrogen Pa 79125 >160000 2.02
Oxygen Pa 21228 <15000 0.71
Argon Pa 942 1000 1.06
Carbon dioxide Pa 30 <20 0.67

Nitrogen 78.09% 90.90% 1.16
Oxygen 20.95% 8.52% 0.41
Argon 0.93% 0.57% 0.61
Carbon dioxide 0.03% 0.01% 0.4

Surface density kg/(m^3) 1.22 2.06 1.68
"Flammability" mmol K J-1 7.17 2.87 0.40

Effective temp. K 253 261 1.03
Greenhouse effect K +36 +32 0.90
Surface temp. K 288 293 1.01
Surface temp. C 15.4 19.7 1.28
Solar constant W/(m^2) 1383 1750 1.27


Moon #1 (Nessus) The Moon Nessus Ratio

Mass kg 7.35E+22 6.50E+21 0.09
Radius m 1.74E+06 8.00E+05 0.46
Dist. from planet m 3.84E+08 2.00E+08 0.52
Surface area m^2 3.80E+13 8.04E+12 0.21
Mean gravity m/(s^2) 1.62 0.68 0.42
Density kg/(m^3) 3342 3031 0.91
Synodic month our days 29.5 7.7 0.26
Synodic month local days 29.5 10.6 0.36
Syn. months/yr 12.4 50.2 4.05
Angular radius degrees 0.26 0.23 0.88


Moon #2 (Pholus) The Moon Pholus Ratio

Mass kg 7.35E+22 5.20E+20 0.01
Radius m 1.74E+06 3.50E+05 0.20
Dist. from planet m 3.84E+08 1.00E+08 0.26
Surface area m^2 3.80E+13 1.54E+12 0.04
Mean gravity m/(s^2) 1.62 0.28 0.17
Density kg/(m^3) 3342 2895 0.87
Synodic month our days 29.5 2.7 0.09
Synodic month local days 29.5 3.7 0.13
Syn. months/yr 12.39 143.76 11.60
Angular radius degrees 0.26 0.20 0.77


Eurytion (Mercurian planet) Earth Eurytion Ratio

Mass kg 5.98E+24 5.16E+23 0.09
Equat. radius m 6.38E+06 2.82E+06 0.44
Dist. from star m 1.50E+11 7.06E+10 0.47
Surface area m^2 5.10E+14 9.98E+13 0.20
Standard gravity m/(s^2) 9.81 4.33 0.44
Escape velocity m/s 11184 4942 0.44
Density kg/(m^3) 5519 5503 1.00
Size of sun degrees 0.27 0.62 2.31
Year our days 365.3 113.8 0.31
Year local days 365.3 SYNCHRONOUS
Horizon distance m 5051 3357 0.66
Surf. temperature K 288 438 1.52
Surf. temperature C 15.4 165.3 10.71
Solar constant W/(m^2) 1383 8999 6.51

-----

Preliminary report on the Chironian biosphere

Introduction - the astrophysical background

Alpha Centauri A ("Alpha Prime") is a G2V main sequence star, similar
in spectral class to the Sun, but about a billion years older. Chiron
(or "Planet" as most of the colonists refer to it) is a 1.8 Earth mass
planet orbiting at 1.08 AU from Alpha Prime, receiving 23% more
sunlight than Earth does at the present.

Like the Sun, Alpha Prime was once about 30%-40% dimmer than its
present luminosity. Stars grow continually more luminous over their
lifetime on the main sequence - this was a matter of some concern to
astronomers in the past (Hart 1978) who reasoned that if the Sun had
been much less luminous than it is today, then the Earth should have
been locked in a permanent ice age. But the geological record shows
that Earth was not significantly cooler than it is today. This was
known as the Faint Young Sun Paradox.

It was Walker and Kasting who pointed out (1981) that if the Earth had
had a much greater amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, then the CO2
greenhouse effect could account for the difference. CO2 is emitted
into the atmosphere from volcanoes and weathered out of the atmosphere
by the reaction

CaSiO3 + CO2 ---> CaCO3 + SiO2
calcium carbon lime silica
silicate dioxide

The carbonate rocks are eventually subducted into the mantle by
continental drift, broken down into silicate rocks and CO2, and the
cycle begins again. The crucial feature of this cycle is that the
weathering reaction is temperature dependent: the higher the
temperature, the faster CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. So the
carbonate-silicate cycle acts as a planetary thermostat, keeping
temperatures constant even while stars vary over geological time.

On Earth, the consequence was that life evolved in an atmosphere of up
to 1000 millibars CO2 or even more. The first photosynthesising
organisms using atmospheric CO2 may have evolved up to four billion
years ago and have dominated the biosphere ever since. But on Chiron,
the temperature was already too high to support a dense CO2
atmosphere, and carbon was a much less available element in the warm
early seas. This has led to a very different evolutionary path.

Chiron today - atmospheric composition

The atmosphere consists of >160 kPa N2, <15 kPa O2 and <20 Pa CO2. The
low oxygen content results in fewer forest fires, a higher proportion
of anoxic environments - encouraging a large anaerobic ecosystem
reducing nitrates to break down organic matter, about which more later
(see report on "xenofungus") - and a plant ecosystem dominated by the
need to conserve carbon.

Meteorology and Climatology

The warm tropical seas of Chiron are breeding grounds for hurricanes,
which are also encouraged by the high gravity and rapid rotation. The
dense nitrogen atmosphere only partly offsets this. The equatorial
cloud belts, however, help to regulate the climate by reflecting
sunlight.

Because the planet spins faster, the winds follow the lines of
latitude more strictly than on Earth. Moreover, the meridional
circulation splits into five cells, as opposed to Earth's three
(Hadley, Ferrel, and Rossby). Compare this to the bands on a giant,
rapidly rotating planet like Jupiter or Saturn.

Oceanography

At over 20% higher insolation than Earth, Chiron has very small polar
ice caps. The effect of this on the oceanic circulation is profound.
Instead of cold oxygen-rich polar water sinking at the poles and being
carried in a current along the ocean floor to the equator (as on Earth
today), the circulation is driven in reverse, with warm saline
oxygen-poor water sinking at the equator and flowing to the poles (as
on Earth in the Cretaceous period). As a result, the bottom waters are
highly anoxic (note: such seas are called euxinic after the Black
Sea).

Soil Composition

Compared to Earth, silicates are much less common in the soils of
Chiron. As in the tropics on Earth, warm water leaches the silica from
clays, leaving a poor alumina-rich soil (this does not prevent rain
forests from growing, but will inhibit agriculture). The arctic
regions have a higher proportion of acidic soils with a high
proportion of organic matter (podzols) which is equally hard to farm.
The temperate soil zone, which on Earth is favoured with rich
aluminosilicate clays, is much narrower here on Chiron, and the soils
are more likely to be sandy or lime-rich. Bogs are also common.

Ecology

Although basically similar to Earth life, in that it is based on
carbon compounds in water, the organisms of Chiron have evolved a
biochemistry very different Earth. The scarcity of carbon in the
environment, and of dioxygen in the soil, has forced plants to try to
make do without O2, and economize on the use of carbon in structural
parts and as an energy storage material. They do this by using a
biochemical reaction unknown on Earth

N2 + H2O + 5/2O2 --> 2H+ + 2NO3- ( -7 kcal mol-1 )

as can be seen, this reaction is exothermic, but (thankfully) is
unknown on Earth. Chironian plants seem to have a special enzyme to
encourage this reaction, possibly with the aid of sunlight. They use
the nitrate obtained this way to store energy as organic
nitro-compounds (see report on "gun-cotton trees"); to reduce
carbonates to carbon; and to carry out respiration in anoxic
environments.

The prevalence of anoxic environments rich in organic material,
combined with the presence everywhere on Chiron of nitrated compounds
has led to an astonishing variety of underground organisms (see report
on "xenofungus") which live in the absence of oxygen (though they can
use oxygen if it is present) and "breathe" nitrate:

(CH2O) + NO3 ---> H2O + CO2 + 1/2N2O + 1/4O2

This ecosystem apparently has symbiotic relations with the plants and
with Chironian animal life (see report on "mind worms"). The
prevalence of nitrate in the environment has serious repercussions
(see below).

The nitrous oxide is present in only small amounts as it combines with
ozone in the stratosphere to break down into N2 and O2

light
N2O + O3 ---> 2NO + O2 ; 2NO ---> N2 + O2

This process prevents the build-up of an ozone layer.

Fossil Fuels

When plant material is buried, nitro-hydrocarbons have all they need
to "burn", so they will do so slowly underground, leaving nothing
behind until all the reducing material (hydrocarbon) or all the
oxidizing material (nitrate) has gone. We expect the nitrate to run
out first in all cases, leaving a residue of carbon compounds.
Provided this does not come into contact with oxygen, it will
fossilize to produce ordinary fossil fuels. Since Chiron has been hot
and hypoxic for a long time, it should have all the oil, shale, and
coal the colonists could want.

This will be a focus of the colonists' terraforming efforts to
increase the CO2 (and hence oxygen) as they transplant Earth
vegetation to Chiron. They will also want to blast chalk limestone
deposits (which are also abundant on Chiron) to liberate the CO2.

Regardless of any attempt to wipe out the underground nitrate
respirers, all our efforts to return carbon to the biosphere will
encourage Chironian life to proliferate. Conversely, the huge
quantities of nitrate in the soil will be heaven to human farmers.

But the water will have to be treated in order to remove the nitrates
so that it is safe to drink; otherwise the colonists may suffer from
methaemoglobinaemia, or "blue baby syndrome", where the red blood
cells are poisoned so they can't take up oxygen. The way to do it is
to pass ozone through the water to destroy the nitrate.

Planetologist Del Cotter. UNS Unity, February 24, 2100AD.

-----

Alpha Centauri (c)1998 Electronic Arts. Electronic Arts and the Electronic
Arts logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts in
the U.S. and/or other countries. All rights reserved. Alpha Centauri and
Firaxis Games are trademarks of Firaxis Games, Inc.

--
Daniel Boese dbo...@nev.npiec.on.ca
"I want be accused of and found guilty of morticide. Is that wrong?"

Coridon Henshaw

unread,
Aug 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/6/98
to Daniel Boese

Daniel Boese wrote:

> (I posted this last Thursday, but my local server lost its newsfeed for a
> while. If this shows up twice, my apologies.

Congratulations. You win the award for the most creatively done spam I've
ever seen.

Smash your head through your monitor for the reward.

> Alpha Centauri (c)1998 Electronic Arts. Electronic Arts and the Electronic
> Arts logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts in the
> U.S. and/or other countries. All rights reserved. Alpha Centauri and
> Firaxis Games are trademarks of Firaxis Games, Inc.

Gonna sue all those nasty astronomers for violating your trademark 'rights?'

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| This message does not reflect the views of Green Circle Communciations. |
| OS/2 Warp - SCSI - free speech. Do I pick losing causes or what? |
|------------------------------------http://www.myna.com/~gcircle/csbh.html-


Erik Max Francis

unread,
Aug 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/7/98
to
Coridon Henshaw wrote:

> Gonna sue all those nasty astronomers for violating your trademark
> 'rights?'

Trademarks are only meaningful in the context in which they were
created. Creating a computer game called Alpha Centauri would probably
be a violation of such a trademark. Creating a brand of toilet paper
named Alpha Centauri definitely would not.

--
Erik Max Francis / email m...@alcyone.com / whois mf303 / icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems / irc maxxon (efnet) / finger m...@sade.alcyone.com
San Jose, CA / languages En, Eo / web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
USA / icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W / &tSftDotIotE
\
/ I've got the fever for the flavor of a cracker
/ Ice Cube

Johan Blondelle

unread,
Aug 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/10/98
to

Erik Max Francis wrote:

> Coridon Henshaw wrote:
>
> > Gonna sue all those nasty astronomers for violating your trademark
> > 'rights?'
>
> Trademarks are only meaningful in the context in which they were
> created. Creating a computer game called Alpha Centauri would probably
> be a violation of such a trademark. Creating a brand of toilet paper
> named Alpha Centauri definitely would not.
>

Actually, I'm not so sure of that... Recently, Ford Europe announced the
introduction of a new model called the "Focus" - only to get sued by a
publishing company (specialized in knitting and sewing magazines) that
owned the copyright to the name Focus.
Now, unless the bodywork of the new Ford would be knitted steel, I'd expect
very little confusion could possibly arise there...;-)
(check http://www.pathfinder.com/money/latest/rbus/RB/1998Jul26/253.html)

Regards,

Johan Blondelle
#include <disclaimer.h>


Erik Max Francis

unread,
Aug 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/10/98
to
Johan Blondelle wrote:

> Actually, I'm not so sure of that... Recently, Ford Europe announced
> the
> introduction of a new model called the "Focus" - only to get sued by a
> publishing company (specialized in knitting and sewing magazines) that
> owned the copyright to the name Focus.

Trademark, not copyright.

> Now, unless the bodywork of the new Ford would be knitted steel, I'd
> expect
> very little confusion could possibly arise there...;-)

The question is not whether or not one can bring suit, the question is
whether or not one will reasonably win in court. Many companies would
rather come to some reasonable agreement (this being an example of one
of them) rather than bother to go to the trouble of going to court over
something which is not essential.

Johan Blondelle

unread,
Aug 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/10/98
to

Erik Max Francis wrote:

> <snip>

> > that owned the copyright to the name Focus.
>
> Trademark, not copyright.

I stand corrected, my apologies.

> The question is not whether or not one can bring suit, the question is
> whether or not one will reasonably win in court. Many companies would
> rather come to some reasonable agreement (this being an example of one
> of them) rather than bother to go to the trouble of going to court over
> something which is not essential.

I agree, common sense would indeed dictate this. However, this would seem to
contradict your earlier post in this thread <Trademarks are only meaningful
in the context in which they were created, etc> .
I'm not being obtuse or attacking you personally - I greatly value your
posts in this NG and usually subscribe to your views - but I just fail to
see the coherence between both statements.

Respectfully,

Johan Blondelle
#include <disclaimer.h>


Erik Max Francis

unread,
Aug 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/10/98
to
Johan Blondelle wrote:

> I agree, common sense would indeed dictate this. However, this would
> seem to
> contradict your earlier post in this thread <Trademarks are only
> meaningful
> in the context in which they were created, etc> .

There is no conflict, since the case never went to trial and was settled
out of court.

Often parties will bring suits against other parties because they feel
that the impending lawsuit will force the opponent into a position where
they would rather deal than go to trial, even if they are fully aware
that they woud ultimately win.

This sounds like one of those cases. When you don't have all that much
invested in a name, it makes more sense to settle out of court rather
than fight tooth and nail.

Because someone settles out of court is often not very strongly
correlated with their culpability or even whether or not they think they
would win.

> I'm not being obtuse or attacking you personally - I greatly value
> your
> posts in this NG and usually subscribe to your views - but I just fail
> to
> see the coherence between both statements.

I appreciate your comments and took no offense. The difference between
the two statements is that one involved winning in court, whereas the
other involved a case that was settled out of court before it ever went
to trial.

Matthias Warkus

unread,
Aug 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/10/98
to
> Actually, I'm not so sure of that... Recently, Ford Europe announced the
> introduction of a new model called the "Focus" - only to get sued by a
> publishing company (specialized in knitting and sewing magazines) that

> owned the copyright to the name Focus.
Focus is not a knitting or sewing magazine, but a bad
(=greed-is-God-oriented), but popular _Der_Spiegel_ (roughly _Newsweek_)
clone.

> Now, unless the bodywork of the new Ford would be knitted steel, I'd expect
> very little confusion could possibly arise there...;-)

AFAIK, at least in France (I don´t know about the German system, Focus
is German) you can register a trademark in 42 categories. If you
register something in the "heavy machinery" category, nothing prevents
other people from registering it in the "computer software" category.
This is why there is a car named Twingo and cookies named Twingo.
But companies like Danone and Coca-Cola have registered their names in
all the categories, so they have got the rights for the Danone
carburator and the Coke machine gun.
This is what Burda (the Focus publisher) must have done.

mawa
--
mailto:ma...@iname.com | look: http://www.angelfire.com/ny/mawaspace/
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GAT/U d-(--) s:- a--- C++(++++)>$ P+(--) L++>++++>$ E++>+++ W++(-) N++
o? K w---(+) >M+ V-- PS+(++) PE(-)(--) Y+>++ >PGP++ t+(---)@ 5>+ X-@
>R+++@ tv(+) b+++(++++)>$ >DI+ D(--)(---) G++ e@(*)>++++ h! !y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Peter Brülls

unread,
Aug 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/10/98
to
Johan Blondelle <johan_dot...@xeikon.be>:

> Actually, I'm not so sure of that... Recently, Ford Europe announced
> the introduction of a new model called the "Focus" - only to get
> sued by a publishing company (specialized in knitting and sewing
> magazines) that owned the copyright to the name Focus.

``Focus'' is a relatively new, but high profile, weekly magazine, a
main competitor to the ``Spiegel''. These magazines fill the same
publishing niche as Time and Newsweek and have their own weekly TV
shows. It is not some obscure magazine, but has a high recognition
factor, due to it's big campaign a few years back. The publishing
company put in a lot of effort and money to to establish that name,
which was virtually unknown as a brand name.

Second, it was Ford which went to court in the first
place. Apparently, they wanted to prevent Burda (the publisher) from
suing them --- and fell flat on their noses.

> Now, unless the bodywork of the new Ford would be knitted steel, I'd
> expect very little confusion could possibly arise there...;-)

Yes, and the judges saw it the same way. They ruled, that while the
trademarks didn't collide, Ford couldn't use the name Focus because
they'd violate the terms ``good manners'', because by using that name,
they'd leech from Burda's (the publishers) efforts.

I guess if Ford USA tried to sell a ``Ford Mickey Mouse'', they'd get
some flak from Disney, too.

> (check http://www.pathfinder.com/money/latest/rbus/RB/1998Jul26/253.html)


Johan Blondelle

unread,
Aug 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/11/98
to
Peter Brülls wrote:

> ``Focus'' is a relatively new, but high profile, weekly magazine, a
> main competitor to the ``Spiegel''. These magazines fill the same
> publishing niche as Time and Newsweek and have their own weekly TV
> shows. It is not some obscure magazine, but has a high recognition
> factor, due to it's big campaign a few years back. The publishing
> company put in a lot of effort and money to to establish that name,
> which was virtually unknown as a brand name.

Thanks for pointing this out to me! In Belgium (where I live) Burda is only
known for its "women's" magazines, hence my mild surprise at the mere fact that
a conflict could even exist.

> Second, it was Ford which went to court in the first
> place. Apparently, they wanted to prevent Burda (the publisher) from
> suing them --- and fell flat on their noses.

... And this wasn't reported in any of the newspapers I have read. This changes
things significantly, of course. Bad move by Ford, then?
Incidentally, my wife and I sold our Ford Escort a couple of months ago, and in
order to assess the current second hand value I did an internet search.
Obviously, nine out of ten hits referred to Escort services catering in all
sorts of lovely ladies.
Should Ford sue them as well, then? ;-)

Thanks for the information!

Johan

#include <disclaimer.h>


Johan Blondelle

unread,
Aug 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/11/98
to
Matthias Warkus wrote:

> AFAIK, at least in France (I don´t know about the German system, Focus
> is German) you can register a trademark in 42 categories.

Off-topic WRT this NG, but since you seem to be well informed: do you happen to
know whether a _number_ can be registered as well?For instance, could I market a
Ford 911, or a Cessna 747?

Johan
#include <disclaimer.h>

PS: I've seen this "geek code block" a few times, what does it do?

Erik Max Francis

unread,
Aug 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/11/98
to
Johan Blondelle wrote:

> Off-topic WRT this NG, but since you seem to be well informed: do you
> happen to
> know whether a _number_ can be registered as well?For instance, could
> I market a
> Ford 911, or a Cessna 747?

You can register the full term, but probably not the number in
isolation.

> PS: I've seen this "geek code block" a few times, what does it do?

Some people like to summarize their personality with a "geek code."

--
Erik Max Francis / email m...@alcyone.com / whois mf303 / icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems / irc maxxon (efnet) / finger m...@sade.alcyone.com
San Jose, CA / languages En, Eo / web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
USA / icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W / &tSftDotIotE
\

/ But since when can wounded eyes see
/ Joi

ferruccio barletta

unread,
Aug 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/11/98
to
Johan Blondelle (johan_dot...@xeikon.be) wrote:
: Matthias Warkus wrote:

: > AFAIK, at least in France (I don´t know about the German system, Focus
: > is German) you can register a trademark in 42 categories.

: Off-topic WRT this NG, but since you seem to be well informed: do you happen to


: know whether a _number_ can be registered as well?For instance, could I market a
: Ford 911, or a Cessna 747?

I don't think so. Intel was not allowed to trademark 586.


--
FGB

Nyrath the nearly wise

unread,
Aug 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/11/98
to Johan Blondelle
Johan Blondelle wrote:
> PS: I've seen this "geek code block" a few times, what does it do?

It is a weird shorthand way of telling the world about
your personality. For instance, a+ means that you are
from 40-49 years of age.

Details can be had at http://www.geekcode.com/
You can decode geek codes online at http://www.ebb.org/ungeek/

Winchell Chung
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/CS/FA d->!d s:+ a>---- C++(++++) US>+++ P+>++ L E W++ N++
o? K w++$>w--- O? M+$>M++$ V? PS+(+++) PE@ Y+(++) PGP+>+++ t
5+++ X+ R+ tv b+++ DI++ D+ G e++ h--- r++ y++>+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Matthias Warkus

unread,
Aug 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/11/98
to
> > AFAIK, at least in France (I don愒 know about the German system, Focus

> > is German) you can register a trademark in 42 categories.
>
> Off-topic WRT this NG, but since you seem to be well informed: do you happen to
> know whether a _number_ can be registered as well?
For Germany, the answer is a resounding YES.
Porsche owns all three-digit numbers starting with a nine and ending
with two equal digits. (911)
Renault owns all three-digit numbers with a 0 in the middle. (106)
AFAIK, Mazda owns all three-digit numbers where the first and the last
number are the same (at least for cars). (323, 626, 121)

> For instance, could I market a
> Ford 911

No. Porsche愀 trademark.

> or a Cessna 747?
Probably no.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

Johan Blondelle

unread,
Aug 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/12/98
to
Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:

> It is a weird shorthand way of telling the world about
> your personality. For instance, a+ means that you are
> from 40-49 years of age.
>
> Details can be had at http://www.geekcode.com/
> You can decode geek codes online at http://www.ebb.org/ungeek/

Thanks for the link! As you can see, I've used my time at the office
*efficiently* and had a go at concocting my own description. Live and
learn, I say...

--
Johan Blondelle

#include <disclaimer.h>


-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12

GE/MU/L d+(-) s+:+ a C++>$ U>++ P? L>++ E? W+ N++ K- w++ M-- V? PS+ PE Y+
t++ 5- X++ tv+ b+++ DI++ D++ G e++++ h--- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Lelaps

unread,
Aug 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/25/98
to
Johan Blondelle wrote:

>> Off-topic WRT this NG, but since you seem to be well informed: do you
>> happen to

>> know whether a _number_ can be registered as well?For instance, could
>> I market a


>> Ford 911, or a Cessna 747?

>You can register the full term, but probably not the >number in isolation.

You cannot Trademark or Copywrite a number, thus no 686 computer from Intel,
BTW you can't Copywrite an acronym either, MMX doesn't stand for anything.

Erik Max Francis

unread,
Aug 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/25/98
to
Lelaps wrote:

> You cannot Trademark or Copywrite a number, thus no 686 computer from
> Intel,
> BTW you can't Copywrite an acronym either, MMX doesn't stand for
> anything.

The word is copyright, and you can't copyright words or short phrases in
any case -- you can only copyright entire works.

--
Erik Max Francis / email m...@alcyone.com / whois mf303 / icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems / irc maxxon (efnet) / finger m...@sade.alcyone.com
San Jose, CA / languages En, Eo / web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
USA / icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W / &tSftDotIotE
\

/ Everything is true -- all is permissible.
/ Hassan i Sabbah

Tommy the Terrorist

unread,
Aug 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/29/98
to
In article <35E33511...@alcyone.com> Erik Max Francis,

m...@alcyone.com writes:
>The word is copyright, and you can't copyright words or short phrases in
>any case -- you can only copyright entire works.

Well, there are some problems with this idea. For instance, consider the
soap-opera history of the role-playing game "Dungeons and Dragons". The
makers of this game were sued for violating "copyright" of the H.P.
Lovecraft stories (by distant heirs of his long-dead lover). The reason?
In a book they wrote, "Dieties and Demigods", they had a brief
description and game statistics for some entities like Cthulhu and
Hastur, which had been described in the books. Indeed, if you look at
some of the nasty lawsuits (like when the makers of Star Trek had a
theater troupe censored for their parody "Star Twek") the claim is that
characters, settings, music, plot, and lots of other things are each
individually "protected" according to what seems to be a virtually
nonexistent standard of proof. I think this one was taken to its near
ultimate when Frank Herbert sued the makers of "Star Wars", claiming it
was "derived" from Dune - I don't remember for sure, but didn't he win???
But anyway, let's get this thing with Dungeons and Dragons again... they
were ALSO sued by Michael Moorcock and forced to censor descriptions of
the deities he describes in the same book. AND they were sued by the
Tolkien estate and forced to rename a race of short little creatures
"halflings" instead of the infringing "hobbits", which goes to show that
you CAN copyright a word. So after all this ... they went on the Net for
some time and threatened anyone posting scenarios to be played with their
games, arousing a potent hostile reaction from Netters. Eventually they
seem to have given up, partly due to a takeover, but who knows what comes
next? Those who trade in the imagination make their money and must make
their ultimate priority the suppression of EVERYONE else's imagination.
That is the "capitalist system", and it can no more survive freedom of
speech than the communist system.

Of course, where the suppression of individual words is concerned, the
"trademark" system has been much more broadly abused than the "copyright"
system. For instance, when Apple Music sued Apple Computer, forcing them
to agree not to have more than 8-bit sound because having more than that
made them "compete" with Apple Music, a no-no. Apple Music pretty much
OWNED the word "apple" even then, and that was long BEFORE the Trademark
Anti-Dilution Act of 1996, one of the single most offensive censorship
laws passed by the United States over the past few decades. Under the
new laws, the employees of the Orange County Register were subjected to
subpoenaed revelation of their identities by their Internet provider (and
subsequent firing) under a lawsuit filed because the "Orange County
unRegistered" name of their web site "infringed" and "demeaned" the
newspaper's trademark. Then there is the Budweiser legal threat against
the "Bud-Is-Wiser" drug legalization frogs... etc. (I've heard dozens of
these, though a few really stick to mind).

So I tell you, there is no "logic", no "justice" in this system. It
really IS a might makes right system, pure and simple. And if you don't
happen to be a millionaire, then you have no legal "might". If you wish
to be able to defend your right to say what you want about corporations,
you MUST resort to acts of terrorism of a non-legal nature in response to
the acts of terrorism committed against you, when the corporation chooses
to do so. It is your right, it is your duty, and it is your sacred honor
to do so.

Erik Max Francis

unread,
Aug 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/29/98
to
Tommy the Terrorist wrote:

> AND they were sued by the
> Tolkien estate and forced to rename a race of short little creatures
> "halflings" instead of the infringing "hobbits", which goes to show
> that
> you CAN copyright a word.

You can sue anybody for anything. The question is whether you'll likely
win. Individual words can't be copyrighted; they can only be
trademarked.

Characters usually can't be copyrighted, unless the characters
themselves are the essence of the work. So Sam Spade can't be
copyrighted (although he can be owned), but Mickey Mouse can.

Copyright law is fairly complicated, and ultimately it is up to a judge.
The statutes are pretty clear in most cases. It's certainly clear that
individual words or phrases are uncopyrightable, though they are
certainly trademarkable. A book like _The copyright book_ (Strong) goes
into much more detail.

Are you sure that _halfling_ and _hobbit_ weren't trademarked words? It
wouldn't surprise me.

> So I tell you, there is no "logic", no "justice" in this system. It
> really IS a might makes right system, pure and simple. And if you
> don't
> happen to be a millionaire, then you have no legal "might".

That goes for any legal endeavor. If you can't afford lawyers, you will
lose.

--
Erik Max Francis / email m...@alcyone.com / whois mf303 / icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems / irc maxxon (efnet) / finger m...@sade.alcyone.com
San Jose, CA / languages En, Eo / web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
USA / icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W / &tSftDotIotE
\

/ The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
/ Oscar Wilde

Ian

unread,
Aug 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/29/98
to
lel...@aol.com (Lelaps) wrote:

>Johan Blondelle wrote:
>
>>> Off-topic WRT this NG, but since you seem to be well informed: do you
>>> happen to
>>> know whether a _number_ can be registered as well?For instance, could
>>> I market a
>>> Ford 911, or a Cessna 747?
>
>>You can register the full term, but probably not the >number in isolation.
>

>You cannot Trademark or Copywrite a number, thus no 686 computer from Intel,
>BTW you can't Copywrite an acronym either, MMX doesn't stand for anything.

Multi-Media eXtensions.


Buddha M Buck

unread,
Aug 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/30/98
to
Tommy the Terrorist <may...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <35E33511...@alcyone.com> Erik Max Francis,
> m...@alcyone.com writes:
> >The word is copyright, and you can't copyright words or short phrases in
> >any case -- you can only copyright entire works.

> Well, there are some problems with this idea. For instance, consider the
> soap-opera history of the role-playing game "Dungeons and Dragons". The
> makers of this game were sued for violating "copyright" of the H.P.
> Lovecraft stories (by distant heirs of his long-dead lover). The reason?
> In a book they wrote, "Dieties and Demigods", they had a brief
> description and game statistics for some entities like Cthulhu and
> Hastur, which had been described in the books.

This is, in a way, misstating the case (as well as with the Michael
Moorcock example below).

I used to own a copy of the edition of _Dieties and Demigods_ that
caused the suits by the heirs of Lovecraft and my Moorcock. Based on
the content, I don't see the suits as unreasonable.

The layout of the book listed the various deities, demigods, heros,
and mythic artifacts my mythology. That way, if people wanted to run
a nordic campaign, they could look at the "Norse Mythos" section, and
get listings for the various asiers, vaniers, giants, etc. For each
entry, it usually had an illustration, game statistics, and a
description. This was not a problem, in and of itself, since most of
the mythologies they used were quite old, and obviously generic.

The problem arised with two particular mythologies: the "Cthulhu
Mythos", and the "Melnibonean Mythos". Neither section was identified
as being based on works of fiction, and looked as generic as any other
mythos listed. Both sections specifically described by name perhaps
15-20 creatures, gods, heros and artifacts from each source, based on
the material in the respective source material.

I could see arguing the case two ways, once based on the theory of
trade marks, and once based on the theory of copyrights. I am not a
lawyer, so legally I wouldn't argue it at all.

Based on copyright, those two sections could easily be viewed as
derivative works of the original works used. After all, the only
primary source for the information derived was from the work of
Lovecraft or of Moorcock.

Based on trademark, the names "Yog Sototh", "Elric", and others, in
their respective contexts can clearly be seen as "marks" in trade,
representing the work of Lovecraft and Moorcock. It is reasonable to
see in the case of Moorcock that a description of the "Melnibonean
Mythos", including names, deeds, etc could infringe on the commercial
value of Moorcock's own work concerning the fictional realm he created
called "Melnibone".

> Indeed, if you look at
> some of the nasty lawsuits (like when the makers of Star Trek had a
> theater troupe censored for their parody "Star Twek") the claim is that
> characters, settings, music, plot, and lots of other things are each
> individually "protected" according to what seems to be a virtually
> nonexistent standard of proof.

While I'm not condoning the practice, the rules for lawsuits in the US
are simple:

1) If you think you have a rightious case, sue.
2) If your case has a potential air of legitimacy, -and- you have much
deeper pockets than your opponent, sue.

That someone sued for -anything- should not to be taken for an
indication of the "standard of proof" involved. Instead, a) take a
look at the -outcomes- of these "outrageous" suits, and b) take a look
at the particulars. The latter is important because sometimes the
stories going around don't match the facts. A perfect example is the
"outrageous" $3 million award a few years back to a woman who got
burned in her car by hot McDonalds coffee. Popular opinion was in an
outrage that someone stupid enough to hold an open cup of coffee in
her lap while going over a speed bump should be able to sue for $3M,
and win! The truth is that while she did suffer third-degree burns
(requiring among other things reconstructive plastic surgery to her
labia), she initially asked McDonalds to cover her medical bills above
what her insurance covered (about $25K). When they said no, she sued,
for the cost of her medical bills, plus legal fees. When the jury
found out that McDonalds had had over 400 similar complaints about
it's hot coffee in the past, had done nothing to fix the coffee, and
in fact claimed that there wasn't a problem, decided to punish
McDonalds with the $3M award. The award was lowered on appeal, and
eventually they settled for about $400K.

> I think this one was taken to its near
> ultimate when Frank Herbert sued the makers of "Star Wars", claiming it
> was "derived" from Dune - I don't remember for sure, but didn't he
> win???

I know nothing about this case. Do you have more information?

> But anyway, let's get this thing with Dungeons and Dragons again... they
> were ALSO sued by Michael Moorcock and forced to censor descriptions of
> the deities he describes in the same book.

Discussed above...

> AND they were sued by the
> Tolkien estate and forced to rename a race of short little creatures
> "halflings" instead of the infringing "hobbits", which goes to show that
> you CAN copyright a word.

Can you honestly say that a game involving wizards, dwarfs, elves and
hobbits going on quests against orcs, trolls, and dragons -isn't-
derived from J.R.R.Tolkien's work? "Hobbit" was a coined word by
Tolkien, the use of belies the lineage of the work. "Halfling" is a
coined term by TSR. All the other elements, in and of themselves, are
sufficiently generic that they didn't need to be changed.

> So after all this ... they went on the Net for
> some time and threatened anyone posting scenarios to be played with their
> games, arousing a potent hostile reaction from Netters.

I dunno, it seems like a reasonable defense of a trademark to me...
Anyone writing something claiming to be a "D&D Scenario", or "written
for D&D" is at least implying support of TSR. If the scenario sucks,
it could reflect badly on TSR, and their own line of D&D products.

Besides, the rule for trademarks is that you -must- protect them
(which means threats and suits), or you risk losing the trademark.

> Those who trade in the imagination make their money and must make
> their ultimate priority the suppression of EVERYONE else's imagination.
> That is the "capitalist system", and it can no more survive freedom of
> speech than the communist system.

This is a political statement. As such, it is unarguable. I do not
believe it, but I won't argue it with you.

> Of course, where the suppression of individual words is concerned, the
> "trademark" system has been much more broadly abused than the "copyright"
> system. For instance, when Apple Music sued Apple Computer, forcing them
> to agree not to have more than 8-bit sound because having more than that
> made them "compete" with Apple Music, a no-no. Apple Music pretty much
> OWNED the word "apple" even then,

I know some of the particulars of this case, and while I agree the
situation is rediculous, a) it was nothing like what you describe, and
b) I fully support Apple Music in their actions.

What happened is that when Apple Computers was formed, the founders
believed that their logo (the bit apple) and their name ("Apple")
might be trademark infringement on the trademarks of Apple Music (an
apple for a logo, and the name "Apple". In my opinion, they were
overly paranoid, since the field of pre-recorded music and the field
of computers are sufficiently diverse that the chances of someone
confusing the two companies, names, and marks would be miniscule (and
thus, no legal problem with them both having similar marks and names).

So Apple Computers contacted Apple Music, and asked for permission to
use the marks and names that Apple Computers wanted, and thus Apple
Music waiving any future claims they may have. Apple Music agreed, on
the condition that Apple Computers refrain from making machines
designed for the production of music. And thus, the agreement was
made.

Fast forward 8-10 years, and Apple Computer is now -much- bigger than
Apple Music, and decides that it wants to make the Macintosh SX (SX
for Sound Extensions). Some person in legal remembers the old
agreement with Apple Music, fears that the SX might violate the
agreement (after all, the SX is being designed and marketed based on
its sound capability), and somehow, Apple Computer desides to file
suit in England, asking for Apple Music's trademarks to be
invalidated, based on lack of use.

Apple Music doesn't take this lying down, and countersues, to prevent
the release of the SX. The end result: Apple Computers releases the
SX, with 16 bit sound capability, and Apple Music's trademarks are
still valid.

> and that was long BEFORE the Trademark
> Anti-Dilution Act of 1996, one of the single most offensive censorship
> laws passed by the United States over the past few decades.

Could you please give a cite (in the US Code) about this act?

> Under the
> new laws, the employees of the Orange County Register were subjected to
> subpoenaed revelation of their identities by their Internet provider (and
> subsequent firing) under a lawsuit filed because the "Orange County
> unRegistered" name of their web site "infringed" and "demeaned" the
> newspaper's trademark. Then there is the Budweiser legal threat against
> the "Bud-Is-Wiser" drug legalization frogs... etc. (I've heard dozens of
> these, though a few really stick to mind).

Again, "legal threat" has little legal relevance.


Erik Max Francis

unread,
Aug 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/30/98
to
Buddha M Buck wrote:

> 1) If you think you have a rightious case, sue.
> 2) If your case has a potential air of legitimacy, -and- you have much
> deeper pockets than your opponent, sue.

Indeed. And I'd add a rule that:

3. If it even enters your mind that you might be infringing
someone's copyright, don't do it without written permission.

ea...@neosoft.com

unread,
Aug 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/30/98
to
In <35E8FEEA...@alcyone.com>, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> writes:

>Buddha M Buck wrote:
>
>> 1) If you think you have a rightious case, sue.
>> 2) If your case has a potential air of legitimacy, -and- you have much
>> deeper pockets than your opponent, sue.
>
>Indeed. And I'd add a rule that:
>
> 3. If it even enters your mind that you might be infringing
> someone's copyright, don't do it without written permission.
>

And if you neglect 3, be sure you have destroyed all documents, email,
personnel etc that even raised the topic -- if you don't you lose big time.
(unhappy ex-employees are dangerous)
*********************
ea...@Neosoft.com

The meek shall inherit the Earth
the rest of us are going to the Stars!
*******************************


Erik Max Francis

unread,
Aug 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/30/98
to
Ian wrote:

> MMX doesn't stand for anything.
>
> Multi-Media eXtensions.

Or matrix multiplication extensions, depending on when you had asked
about it.

--
Erik Max Francis / email m...@alcyone.com / whois mf303 / icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems / irc maxxon (efnet) / finger m...@sade.alcyone.com
San Jose, CA / languages En, Eo / web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
USA / icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W / &tSftDotIotE
\

/ Many situations can be clarified by the passing of time.
/ Theodore Isaac Rubin

James Nicoll

unread,
Aug 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/31/98
to
In article <35E8FEEA...@alcyone.com>,
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:

>Buddha M Buck wrote:
>
>> 1) If you think you have a rightious case, sue.
>> 2) If your case has a potential air of legitimacy, -and- you have much
>> deeper pockets than your opponent, sue.
>
>Indeed. And I'd add a rule that:
>
> 3. If it even enters your mind that you might be infringing
> someone's copyright, don't do it without written permission.

3a. If you ask and they say no, and then you publish *anyway*
with an intro saying that, yes, the author said no but it's such a
cool idea you just had to publish anyway, don't be surprised if
the author sues. For extra points, try to time this to with negotiations
by the author with a film company.
--
Whenever someone quotes that old Heinlein comment about
specialization being for insects, I like to reflect on how much more
successful than hominids insects have been. Remove humans and you end
a K/T level Extinction Event. Remove insects and you _cause_ one.

Erik Max Francis

unread,
Aug 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/31/98
to
James Nicoll wrote:

> 3a. If you ask and they say no, and then you publish *anyway*
> with an intro saying that, yes, the author said no but it's such a
> cool idea you just had to publish anyway, don't be surprised if
> the author sues.

Yep. Acknowledgement that you knew what you were doing practically
guarantees you will lose.

--
Erik Max Francis / email m...@alcyone.com / whois mf303 / icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems / irc maxxon (efnet) / finger m...@sade.alcyone.com
San Jose, CA / languages En, Eo / web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
USA / icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W / &tSftDotIotE
\

/ War is like love, it always finds a way.
/ Bertolt Brecht

Tom Breton

unread,
Sep 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/1/98
to

[rec.games.frp.dnd added to ng line. And rec.arts.sf.science may want
out of this thread.]

Buddha M Buck <bmb...@acsu.buffalo.edu> writes:

>
> I used to own a copy of the edition of _Dieties and Demigods_ that
> caused the suits by the heirs of Lovecraft and my Moorcock. Based on
> the content, I don't see the suits as unreasonable.

Nor I. I was surprised by the blatantness of it when I first saw it.

> The layout of the book listed the various deities, demigods, heros,
> and mythic artifacts my mythology. That way, if people wanted to run
> a nordic campaign, they could look at the "Norse Mythos" section, and
> get listings for the various asiers, vaniers, giants, etc. For each
> entry, it usually had an illustration, game statistics, and a
> description. This was not a problem, in and of itself, since most of
> the mythologies they used were quite old, and obviously generic.
>
> The problem arised with two particular mythologies: the "Cthulhu
> Mythos", and the "Melnibonean Mythos". Neither section was identified
> as being based on works of fiction, and looked as generic as any other
> mythos listed.


As it happens, I have D&DG, first edition, 1980.

pg 43, (Cthulhu Mythos) top of page: "The Cthulhu Mythos was first
revealed in a group of related stories by the American writer H P
Lovecraft. Beginning with "The Call Of Cthulhu" in ~Wierd Tales~, ..."

pg 86, (Melnibonean Mythos) top of page: "British Author Michael
Moorcock created a race of magicians on the isle of Melnibone... The
stories revolve around ... [yadda yadda]"

And for good measure, pg 96, (Nehwon Mythos), top of page: "The world
of Nehwon is the creation of the famous fantasy author, Fritz Leiber."

I vouch for your other descriptions of the material.

> Based on trademark, the names "Yog Sototh", "Elric", and others, in

Hey, spell "Yog-sothoth" rite, 'cause that's my niece (*).

Tom

(*) Sort of true, rambling story omitted.

Doktor Konnektor

unread,
Sep 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/1/98
to
Erik Max Francis wrote:

> Ian wrote:
>
> > MMX doesn't stand for anything.
> >
> > Multi-Media eXtensions.
>
> Or matrix multiplication extensions, depending on when you had asked
> about it.

Or Mostly Meaningless eXtras }:-)

--
Johan Blondelle AKA Doktor Konnektor
* replace _dot_ with a dot to reply *

#include <disclaimer.h>
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12

GE/MU/L d+(-) s+:+ a C++>$ U>++ P? L>++ E? W+ N++ K++ w++ M-- V? PS+ PE Y+

Staffan Johansson

unread,
Sep 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/2/98
to
Tom Breton wrote:
> > Based on trademark, the names "Yog Sototh", "Elric", and others, in
>
> Hey, spell "Yog-sothoth" rite, 'cause that's my niece (*).
^^

A sterling example off Grznt's law of pedantfy if I ever saw one.

--
Staffan Johansson (d9...@efd.lth.se)
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness.
(Terry Pratchett, Men At Arms)

Ron Poirier

unread,
Sep 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/2/98
to
Peter Sayer wrote:
>
> Staffan Johansson <d9...@efd.lth.se> wrote in article

> > A sterling example off Grznt's law of pedantfy if I ever saw one.
> >
>

> Grznt? I dont know *that* one... nor what pedantfy is... ^
|

You forgot the apostrophe in "don't". Try to be more carefull in the
future.

- Ron ^*^

Ken Andrews

unread,
Sep 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/2/98
to
Ron Poirier wrote in message <35EE2E...@uriacc.uri.edu>...

>Peter Sayer wrote:
>>
>> Staffan Johansson <d9...@efd.lth.se> wrote in article
>
>> > A sterling example off(sic) Grznt's law of pedantfy(sic) if I ever saw
one.
>> >
>>
>> Grznt? I dont(sic) know *that* one... nor what pedantfy is...
^
> |
>
>You forgot the apostrophe in "don't". Try to be more carefull(sic) in the
>future.
>
> - Ron ^*^

Pedantry. A (sic) game for the whole newsgroup.

Peter Sayer

unread,
Sep 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/3/98
to

Staffan Johansson <d9...@efd.lth.se> wrote in article

<35EDADE9...@efd.lth.se>...


> Tom Breton wrote:
> > > Based on trademark, the names "Yog Sototh", "Elric", and others, in
> >

> > Hey, spell "Yog-sothoth" rite, 'cause that's my niece (*).
> ^^
>

> A sterling example off Grznt's law of pedantfy if I ever saw one.
>

Grznt? I dont know *that* one... nor what pedantfy is...

*eg*

> --
> Staffan Johansson (d9...@efd.lth.se)
> It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness.
> (Terry Pratchett, Men At Arms)
>


--
--------------------------------------------------------------
DC2.HaD(Draconid).CG(Hair W).a-.L7f.
g---.WL+^.Bnone.f.d+++!.s(RL---VR+).Fr.
e---.i--!.h+++.$.m.g---.u+.t+++!
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wren Flametongue
Pilot, Technician, Pretty hopeless Mage...

Tom Breton

unread,
Sep 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/3/98
to
Staffan Johansson <d9...@efd.lth.se> writes:

>
> Tom Breton wrote:
> > > Based on trademark, the names "Yog Sototh", "Elric", and others, in
> >

> > Hey, spell "Yog-sothoth" rite, 'cause that's my niece (*).
> ^^
>
> A sterling example off Grznt's law of pedantfy if I ever saw one.
>

And *you've* obviously never heard of ugh-free spelling.

Tom "Were "Grznt" and "pedantfy" supposed to
tempt me into responding in kind...?"


Staffan Johansson

unread,
Sep 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/3/98
to
Tom Breton wrote:
> > A sterling example off Grznt's law of pedantfy if I ever saw one.
^^^

> >
>
> And *you've* obviously never heard of ugh-free spelling.
>
> Tom "Were "Grznt" and "pedantfy" supposed to
> tempt me into responding in kind...?"

No, but "off" was. Grznt's law of pedantfy says that "all usenet posts
correcting someone's spelling must contain at least one spelling mistake
themselves."

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages