Discussion:
Writing dates; more
Add Reply
g***@gmail.com
2017-11-26 19:15:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I cannot scan through 380+ postings on a previous thread, but I can record this anecdote:

I taught at a polytechnic for many years. At some point the administration decided to change their dating protocol to a solely-numeric version. Not long afterwards, the board of governors was notified of the date of their next meeting.

Governors may be wise, but they cannot all or always be supposed to interpret this correctly (yes I know, YOU wouldn't make an error), the date being 06/07/2001.


When some governors arrived on the "wrong" date, they did not blush and apologize; they told the president to get his bloody act together.

I told my students to follow the way they spoke, so they always spelled the full month name; and to include the year date if their document was of the slightest importance. Most of them 'naturally' wrote something that was perfectly clear and unmistakable, eg 5th February 2009.

Canada has no governmentally-required use of one dating system. But somewhere in the paper pipeline, the Canadian parliament is to debate and decide on a single system. We Canadians have a jumble of dating systems inherited from the UK, the USA and a dozen other fine nations.
Richard Heathfield
2017-11-26 19:36:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
I taught at a polytechnic for many years. At some point the administration decided to change their dating protocol to a solely-numeric version. Not long afterwards, the board of governors was notified of the date of their next meeting.
Governors may be wise, but they cannot all or always be supposed to interpret this correctly (yes I know, YOU wouldn't make an error), the date being 06/07/2001.
When some governors arrived on the "wrong" date, they did not blush and apologize;
Then they need a new set of governors.

Anyone can make a mistake. (A friend of mine once turned up six months
late for a job interview for basically the same reason: 07/01 vs 01/07.
It happens.)

But people who, /having/ made a mistake, look for someone else to blame
are not the kind of people I'd want to see in positions of authority.

In the news this week, some celebrity or other issued her umpteenth
apology for having said her umpteenth stupid thing. (I won't embarrass
her further by looking up her name.)

Some people criticised the statement itself, and if they hadn't heard
about the apology I suppose that's fair enough (although you'd think
people would know better than to ascribe enough weight to a comment by a
celebrity to justify criticising that comment!).

But some people seemed to think that her history of apologies was *in
itself* a bad thing. One would think to listen to them that they'd never
made a mistake in their whole lives. Yeah, right.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-26 20:36:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Heathfield
Anyone can make a mistake. (A friend of mine once turned up six months
late for a job interview for basically the same reason: 07/01 vs 01/07.
It happens.)
Imagining that a job interview would be scheduled more than six months in the
future does seem somewhat disqualificatory for most positions.
Quinn C
2017-11-27 18:23:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by g***@gmail.com
I taught at a polytechnic for many years. At some point the
administration decided to change their dating protocol to a
solely-numeric version. Not long afterwards, the board of
governors was notified of the date of their next meeting.
Governors may be wise, but they cannot all or always be
supposed to interpret this correctly (yes I know, YOU wouldn't
make an error), the date being 06/07/2001.
When some governors arrived on the "wrong" date, they did not
blush and apologize;
Then they need a new set of governors.
[...]
people who, /having/ made a mistake, look for someone else to blame
are not the kind of people I'd want to see in positions of authority.
I didn't see the story as blaming so much. It had been become
evident that the existing system was error-prone, and a better one
should be set up.

Your interpretation is similar to the one that made almost every
plane crash a "human error" in the past when in fact, many of
these errors could have been avoided by better systems design.
--
If Helen Keller is alone in the forest and falls down, does she
make a sound?
Neill Massello
2017-11-26 20:56:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
Canada has no governmentally-required use of one dating system. But
somewhere in the paper pipeline, the Canadian parliament is to debate
and decide on a single system. We Canadians have a jumble of dating
systems inherited from the UK, the USA and a dozen other fine nations.
The ISO published a standard for date formats many years ago.

<https://www.iso.org/iso-8601-date-and-time-format.html>

YYYY-MM-DD is short, easy for humans to read but hard for them to
misinterpret, and sorts correctly on data systems that aren't savvy
about dates.

And after all the Y2K hysteria, years should *always* be written with
four digits.
Richard Heathfield
2017-11-26 21:19:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neill Massello
Post by g***@gmail.com
Canada has no governmentally-required use of one dating system. But
somewhere in the paper pipeline, the Canadian parliament is to debate
and decide on a single system. We Canadians have a jumble of dating
systems inherited from the UK, the USA and a dozen other fine nations.
The ISO published a standard for date formats many years ago.
<https://www.iso.org/iso-8601-date-and-time-format.html>
YYYY-MM-DD is short, easy for humans to read but hard for them to
misinterpret, and sorts correctly on data systems that aren't savvy
about dates.
And after all the Y2K hysteria, years should *always* be written with
four digits.
For a while, anyway.

And yet one /still/ sees forms with only two spaces left for the year
number. When I am faced with such a form, I have to write very small.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
g***@gmail.com
2017-11-26 21:26:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neill Massello
The ISO published a standard for date formats many years ago.
<https://www.iso.org/iso-8601-date-and-time-format.html>
YYYY-MM-DD is short, easy for humans to read but hard for them to
misinterpret, ---?
Ask anyone what the date today is, and they will NOT reply 2017, November, 26th.

Because we live in the immediate present, [most of us] think and speak from day to month to year. So, although we are supposed to be uniformly smart and savvy and quick-thinking and up-to date, 2016-07-08 is a small obstacle that gives us pause.

My default is to never give anyone pause; it's 26th November 2017.
Neill Massello
2017-11-26 21:56:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ask anyone what the date today is, and they will NOT reply
2017, November, 26th.
Nor will they say "eleven stroke twenty-six stroke seventeen". The
subject is how dates, especially short-form dates, are written, not how
they are spoken in everyday langauge.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Because we live in the immediate present, [most of us] think and speak
from day to month to year. So, although we are supposed to be uniformly
smart and savvy and quick-thinking and up-to date, 2016-07-08 is a small
obstacle that gives us pause.
I gives me much more pause to come across written dates that I can't
quickly parse into day, month, and year.
Post by g***@gmail.com
My default is to never give anyone pause; it's 26th November 2017.
How's that working for you on web forms and such?
occam
2017-11-26 22:31:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Neill Massello
The ISO published a standard for date formats many years ago.
<https://www.iso.org/iso-8601-date-and-time-format.html>
YYYY-MM-DD is short, easy for humans to read but hard for them to
misinterpret, ---?
Ask anyone what the date today is, and they will NOT reply 2017, November, 26th.
Because we live in the immediate present, [most of us] think and speak from day to month to year.
The issue with dates is not /how we speak them/. It is how we search for
them when scanning through lists and more importantly, how they are
ordered automatically by an electronic indexing system. Look on your
computer for a telephone bill dated of 26-Nov-2017. I guarantee you will
find it quicker if it is labelled 2017-11-26.

Date order always makes more sense with the yyyy first, mm and dd next -
in that order.



So, although we are supposed to be uniformly smart and savvy and
quick-thinking and up-to date, 2016-07-08 is a small obstacle that gives
us pause.
Post by g***@gmail.com
My default is to never give anyone pause; it's 26th November 2017.
g***@gmail.com
2017-11-26 23:34:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 2:31:29 PM UTC-8, occam wrote:

Neill and Occam are both right --- paper or online forms rule out my favourite way of writing dates --- digits-in-windows can be read by machines.
Peter Moylan
2017-11-27 01:08:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
Neill and Occam are both right --- paper or online forms rule out my favourite way of writing dates --- digits-in-windows can be read by machines.
If you have to write a four-digit year in a two-digit window, just write
the first two digits in the space provided, and the other two digits in
the margin.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Ken Blake
2017-11-27 00:05:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ask anyone what the date today is, and they will NOT reply 2017, November, 26th.
Because we live in the immediate present, [most of us] think and speak from day to month to year.
Not for those of us in the US. Almost all of us think and speak from
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-11-27 07:57:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ask anyone what the date today is, and they will NOT reply 2017, November, 26th.
Because we live in the immediate present, [most of us] think and speak
from day to month to year.
Not for those of us in the US. Almost all of us think and speak from
month to day to year.
Yes. That's the problem.
--
athel
Jenny Telia
2017-11-27 11:37:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ask anyone what the date today is, and they will NOT reply 2017, November, 26th.
Because we live in the immediate present, [most of us] think and speak from day to month to year.
Not for those of us in the US. Almost all of us think and speak from
month to day to year.
"Almost all of us"? Had you added "and no one else in the rest of the
world", I may have forgiven you. It is high time Yanks realise that "The
world series" has only one participant, the US. The rest of us ignore
you and, more recently, downgrade you for electing a prat for a President.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-27 12:22:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jenny Telia
"Almost all of us"? Had you added "and no one else in the rest of the
world", I may have forgiven you. It is high time Yanks realise that "The
world series" has only one participant, the US. The rest of us ignore
you and, more recently, downgrade you for electing a prat for a President.
You think Canada is in the US?
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-11-27 12:32:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 04:22:55 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jenny Telia
"Almost all of us"? Had you added "and no one else in the rest of the
world", I may have forgiven you. It is high time Yanks realise that "The
world series" has only one participant, the US. The rest of us ignore
you and, more recently, downgrade you for electing a prat for a President.
You think Canada is in the US?
Emperor Trump is not planning a wall between the US and Canada so he
presumably sees Canada as part of the US.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-27 12:37:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 04:22:55 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jenny Telia
"Almost all of us"? Had you added "and no one else in the rest of the
world", I may have forgiven you. It is high time Yanks realise that "The
world series" has only one participant, the US. The rest of us ignore
you and, more recently, downgrade you for electing a prat for a President.
You think Canada is in the US?
Emperor Trump is not planning a wall between the US and Canada so he
presumably sees Canada as part of the US.
Does he know about baseball? Didn't do the "Throw out the first ball" thing,
a tradition going back to Taft or Cleveland or some such.
Richard Heathfield
2017-11-27 14:10:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 27/11/17 12:32, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:

<snip>
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Emperor Trump is not planning a wall between the US and Canada
The Canadians, on the other hand...



(Sorry to dump two Youtube clips on you within a few minutes of each
other...)
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-11-27 17:51:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Emperor Trump is not planning a wall between the US and Canada
The Canadians, on the other hand...
http://youtu.be/sCyzdD0vYOw
Thanks. I hadn't seen that.
Post by Richard Heathfield
(Sorry to dump two Youtube clips on you within a few minutes of each
other...)
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-11-27 16:39:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 04:22:55 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jenny Telia
"Almost all of us"? Had you added "and no one else in the rest of the
world", I may have forgiven you. It is high time Yanks realise that "The
world series" has only one participant, the US. The rest of us ignore
you and, more recently, downgrade you for electing a prat for a President.
You think Canada is in the US?
Last I heard the Canadians wrote thir dates properly (when allowed to
by the boss next door). So why would the silly little man think that
Jenny Telia thought otherwise?
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Emperor Trump is not planning a wall between the US and Canada so he
presumably sees Canada as part of the US.
--
athel
HVS
2017-11-27 16:49:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 04:22:55 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jenny Telia
"Almost all of us"? Had you added "and no one else in the rest of the
world", I may have forgiven you. It is high time Yanks realise that
"The world series" has only one participant, the US. The rest of us
ignore you and, more recently, downgrade you for electing a prat for
a President.
You think Canada is in the US?
Last I heard the Canadians wrote thir dates properly (when allowed to
by the boss next door). So why would the silly little man think that
Jenny Telia thought otherwise?
I think the "Canada" reference challenges the statement that the World Series
has "...only one participant, the US", rather than the date convention.

There used to be two major league teams in Canada -- I think there's just one
these days -- and the Toronto team won the World Series twice in the early
1990s.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-11-27 16:54:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HVS
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 04:22:55 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jenny Telia
"Almost all of us"? Had you added "and no one else in the rest of the
world", I may have forgiven you. It is high time Yanks realise that
"The world series" has only one participant, the US. The rest of us
ignore you and, more recently, downgrade you for electing a prat for
a President.
You think Canada is in the US?
Last I heard the Canadians wrote thir dates properly (when allowed to
by the boss next door). So why would the silly little man think that
Jenny Telia thought otherwise?
I think the "Canada" reference challenges the statement that the World Series
has "...only one participant, the US", rather than the date convention.
There used to be two major league teams in Canada -- I think there's just one
these days -- and the Toronto team won the World Series twice in the early
1990s.
Probably you're right. My apologies to the little man. However, the
thread is about writing dates, not about baseball. I'm pretty sure that
Jenny's first sentence has nothing to do with baseball.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-27 16:59:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by HVS
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 04:22:55 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jenny Telia
"Almost all of us"? Had you added "and no one else in the rest of the
world", I may have forgiven you. It is high time Yanks realise that
"The world series" has only one participant, the US. The rest of us
ignore you and, more recently, downgrade you for electing a prat for
a President.
You think Canada is in the US?
Last I heard the Canadians wrote thir dates properly (when allowed to
by the boss next door). So why would the silly little man think that
Jenny Telia thought otherwise?
I think the "Canada" reference challenges the statement that the World Series
has "...only one participant, the US", rather than the date convention.
There used to be two major league teams in Canada -- I think there's just one
these days -- and the Toronto team won the World Series twice in the early
1990s.
Probably you're right. My apologies to the little man. However, the
thread is about writing dates, not about baseball. I'm pretty sure that
Jenny's first sentence has nothing to do with baseball.
So what?

Now apparently the moron only reads the first sentences of paragraphs written
by the few people he doesn't "killfile."
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-27 16:55:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HVS
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 04:22:55 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jenny Telia
"Almost all of us"? Had you added "and no one else in the rest of the
world", I may have forgiven you. It is high time Yanks realise that
"The world series" has only one participant, the US. The rest of us
ignore you and, more recently, downgrade you for electing a prat for
a President.
You think Canada is in the US?
Last I heard the Canadians wrote thir dates properly (when allowed to
by the boss next door). So why would the silly little man think that
Jenny Telia thought otherwise?
I think the "Canada" reference challenges the statement that the World Series
has "...only one participant, the US", rather than the date convention.
There used to be two major league teams in Canada -- I think there's just one
these days -- and the Toronto team won the World Series twice in the early
1990s.
The Montreal Expos turned into either the Florida Marlins or the Tampa Bay Rays
(formerly the Devil Rays), quite a while ago.

If you care which, Tony Cooper will doubtless be happy to tell you.
b***@shaw.ca
2017-11-27 17:46:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The Montreal Expos turned into either the Florida Marlins or the Tampa Bay Rays
(formerly the Devil Rays), quite a while ago.
The Expos became the Washington Nationals, in 2005.

bill
Tony Cooper
2017-11-27 20:42:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 08:55:18 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by HVS
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 04:22:55 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jenny Telia
"Almost all of us"? Had you added "and no one else in the rest of the
world", I may have forgiven you. It is high time Yanks realise that
"The world series" has only one participant, the US. The rest of us
ignore you and, more recently, downgrade you for electing a prat for
a President.
You think Canada is in the US?
Last I heard the Canadians wrote thir dates properly (when allowed to
by the boss next door). So why would the silly little man think that
Jenny Telia thought otherwise?
I think the "Canada" reference challenges the statement that the World Series
has "...only one participant, the US", rather than the date convention.
There used to be two major league teams in Canada -- I think there's just one
these days -- and the Toronto team won the World Series twice in the early
1990s.
The Montreal Expos turned into either the Florida Marlins or the Tampa Bay Rays
(formerly the Devil Rays), quite a while ago.
If you care which, Tony Cooper will doubtless be happy to tell you.
S'OK, PTD, no one here pays all that much attention to Canada. The
Expos slipped out of Canada in 2004 and became the Washington
Nationals. (That's the Washington with the foggy bottom, not the one
where it rains all the time) Rumor has it the club failed in Montreal
because no umpires were available that could call balls and strikes in
French.

The Miami Marlins (Yes, that's their official name now) are an
expansion team, not a team-by-another-name in the past. The Tampa Bay
Rays (you at least got that right) are also an expansion team, but
they *were* known by another name: Tampa Bay Devil Rays. The "Devil"
was cast out in 2007.

While Tampa is in the name, the Rays play in St Petersburg FL across
Tampa Bay from the city of Tampa.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-27 16:52:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 04:22:55 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jenny Telia
"Almost all of us"? Had you added "and no one else in the rest of the
world", I may have forgiven you. It is high time Yanks realise that "The
world series" has only one participant, the US. The rest of us ignore
you and, more recently, downgrade you for electing a prat for a President.
You think Canada is in the US?
Last I heard the Canadians wrote thir dates properly (when allowed to
by the boss next door). So why would the silly little man think that
Jenny Telia thought otherwise?
Because the Toronto Blue Jays are eligible for participation in the World
Series (of baseball), moron.
Mack A. Damia
2017-11-27 16:41:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jenny Telia
Post by Ken Blake
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ask anyone what the date today is, and they will NOT reply 2017, November, 26th.
Because we live in the immediate present, [most of us] think and speak from day to month to year.
Not for those of us in the US. Almost all of us think and speak from
month to day to year.
"Almost all of us"? Had you added "and no one else in the rest of the
world", I may have forgiven you. It is high time Yanks realise that "The
world series" has only one participant, the US. The rest of us ignore
you and, more recently, downgrade you for electing a prat for a President.
The people elected Sec. Clinton; the corrupt political machinery
elected Trump.
Ken Blake
2017-11-28 15:22:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jenny Telia
Post by Ken Blake
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ask anyone what the date today is, and they will NOT reply 2017, November, 26th.
Because we live in the immediate present, [most of us] think and speak from day to month to year.
Not for those of us in the US. Almost all of us think and speak from
month to day to year.
"Almost all of us"? Had you added "and no one else in the rest of the
world", I may have forgiven you. It is high time Yanks realise that "The
world series" has only one participant, the US.
And Canada. But I agree with you that the title "world series" is a
very poor one. And I agree with what you are implying: the US far too
often chooses to do things differently from the rest of the world.
Post by Jenny Telia
The rest of us ignore
you
Many of the UK's choices are better than those of the US. I don't
choose to agree or disagree with something because of what country it
came from.

To mention a couple of examples that quickly come to mind, I think
the metric system is far better than the way the US measures things.
But I think the UK should go along with the vast majority of other
countries, and drive on the right side of the road, not the left.

But whether the US (or the UK) is right or wrong about something,
ignoring it is foolish. Just because I think people in the UK should
drive on the right side of the road, that doesn't mean I should ignore
what they do; if I do, I can get myself killed crossing a street in
the UK.
Post by Jenny Telia
and, more recently, downgrade you for electing a prat for a President.
I completely agree with you on that. Downgrading us for that is fine;
it's well deserved. But ignoring us for it isn't. What he does can
unfortunately affect
g***@gmail.com
2017-11-28 17:20:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Jenny Telia
"Almost all of us"? Had you added "and no one else in the rest of the
world", I may have forgiven you. It is high time Yanks realise that "The
world series" has only one participant, the US.
But I agree with you that the title "world series" is a
Post by Ken Blake
very poor one.
Since 1955 there has been a 'World Championship' in British stock-car racing, a form of sport existing only in the UK and Holland, though invitees from the USA, Australia, and S. Africa can compete. Every year a world champion is crowned, and he (so far, he) is always English.

Strangely, there is also a 'British Championship' running concurrently!

Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Sam Plusnet
2017-11-28 20:12:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Jenny Telia
"Almost all of us"? Had you added "and no one else in the rest of the
world", I may have forgiven you. It is high time Yanks realise that "The
world series" has only one participant, the US.
But I agree with you that the title "world series" is a
Post by Ken Blake
very poor one.
Since 1955 there has been a 'World Championship' in British stock-car racing, a form of sport existing only in the UK and Holland, though invitees from the USA, Australia, and S. Africa can compete. Every year a world champion is crowned, and he (so far, he) is always English.
Strangely, there is also a 'British Championship' running concurrently!
http://f1stockcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Lee-gold.jpg
http://f1stockcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Rob_Speak_318_BriSCA_F1_Buxton_August_2013.jpg
Thanks for that.
If asked, I would have suggested that stock car racing died out in the
1960s.
--
Sam Plusnet
g***@gmail.com
2017-11-28 21:43:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by g***@gmail.com
http://f1stockcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Lee-gold.jpg
http://f1stockcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Rob_Speak_318_BriSCA_F1_Buxton_August_2013.jpg
Thanks for that.
If asked, I would have suggested that stock car racing died out in the
1960s.
--
Sam Plusnet
Ah, Sam: it's like football / soccer, as when veteran fans say "Nah, REAL soccer died out when Stanley Matthews retired."

Present-day stock-car drivers are in many cases the sons and even grandsons of the 1950s pioneers. As you saw in my links, the cars no longer reflect anything "stock". Here are four photos of the real thing from 1960's:

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Loading Image...
Kerr-Mudd,John
2017-11-29 12:17:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Jenny Telia
"Almost all of us"? Had you added "and no one else in the rest of
the world", I may have forgiven you. It is high time Yanks realise
that "The world series" has only one participant, the US.
But I agree with you that the title "world series" is a
Post by Ken Blake
very poor one.
Since 1955 there has been a 'World Championship' in British stock-car
racing, a form of sport existing only in the UK and Holland, though
invitees from the USA, Australia, and S. Africa can compete. Every
year a world champion is crowned, and he (so far, he) is always
English.
Strangely, there is also a 'British Championship' running
concurrently!
http://f1stockcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Lee-gold.jpg
http://f1stockcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Rob_Speak_318_BriSCA_
F1_Buxton_August_2013.jpg
And the yanks get annoyed if a non-US team wins the America's Cup!
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-11-28 17:22:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Jenny Telia
Post by Ken Blake
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ask anyone what the date today is, and they will NOT reply 2017, November, 26th.
Because we live in the immediate present, [most of us] think and speak
from day to month to year.
Not for those of us in the US. Almost all of us think and speak from
month to day to year.
"Almost all of us"? Had you added "and no one else in the rest of the
world", I may have forgiven you. It is high time Yanks realise that "The
world series" has only one participant, the US.
And Canada. But I agree with you that the title "world series" is a
very poor one. And I agree with what you are implying: the US far too
often chooses to do things differently from the rest of the world.
Post by Jenny Telia
The rest of us ignore
you
Many of the UK's choices are better than those of the US. I don't
choose to agree or disagree with something because of what country it
came from.
To mention a couple of examples that quickly come to mind, I think
the metric system is far better than the way the US measures things.
But I think the UK should go along with the vast majority of other
countries,
It's a majority, yes, but it's not a vast majority, especially if you
weight it according to the vast numbers of people who live in some of
the countries concerned: Japan, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Thailand,
Indonesia (according to Wikipedia, but I've an idea that they've
switched), and many others. Note that none of the countries in Europe
that drive on the left (UK, Ireland, Cyprus, Malta) have land borders
with countries that drive on the right.

Anyway, you should probably start your campaign in the US Virgin
Islands, for which an executive order from President Trump might be
sufficient.
Post by Ken Blake
and drive on the right side of the road, not the left.
But whether the US (or the UK) is right or wrong about something,
ignoring it is foolish. Just because I think people in the UK should
drive on the right side of the road, that doesn't mean I should ignore
what they do; if I do, I can get myself killed crossing a street in
the UK.
Post by Jenny Telia
and, more recently, downgrade you for electing a prat for a President.
I completely agree with you on that. Downgrading us for that is fine;
it's well deserved. But ignoring us for it isn't. What he does can
unfortunately affect the entire world.
--
athel
Quinn C
2017-11-28 20:11:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
But I think the UK should go along with the vast majority of other
countries, and drive on the right side of the road, not the left.
[...] you should probably start your campaign in the US Virgin
Islands, for which an executive order from President Trump might be
sufficient.
Don't forget to send some 7-year olds to monitor progress.
--
... their average size remains so much smaller; so that the sum
total of food converted into thought by women can never equal
[that of] men. It follows therefore, that men will always think
more than women. -- M.A. Hardaker in Popular Science (1881)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-11-29 09:47:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
But I think the UK should go along with the vast majority of other
countries, and drive on the right side of the road, not the left.
[...] you should probably start your campaign in the US Virgin
Islands, for which an executive order from President Trump might be
sufficient.
Don't forget to send some 7-year olds to monitor progress.
As Ken is new, he probably won't pick up that reference. A few years
ago it was pointed out that they drive on the left in the US Virgin
Islands, and all the sites you can find on the web, complete with
photos of road signs in the US Virgin Islands, agree. However, one
frequent poster said no, because he had visited the US Virgin Islands
with his Mummy and Daddy when he was a wee lad of 7, and said that if
they had driven on the left he would have noticed and would remember 55
or so years later.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-29 12:49:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
But I think the UK should go along with the vast majority of other
countries, and drive on the right side of the road, not the left.
[...] you should probably start your campaign in the US Virgin
Islands, for which an executive order from President Trump might be
sufficient.
Don't forget to send some 7-year olds to monitor progress.
As Ken is new, he probably won't pick up that reference. A few years
ago it was pointed out that they drive on the left in the US Virgin
Islands, and all the sites you can find on the web, complete with
photos of road signs in the US Virgin Islands, agree. However, one
frequent poster said no, because he had visited the US Virgin Islands
with his Mummy and Daddy
The senile moron lies again.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
when he was a wee lad of 7, and said that if
they had driven on the left he would have noticed and would remember 55
or so years later.
Very true.

The senile moron, being afraid to read what I write, failed to notice the subsequent correction.

Though the octogenarian, having taken offense about being corrected about a basic matter of NYC
dialect in his early days here, also proclaimed himself unwilling to read what I write, so he
too will remain in ignorance.
Ken Blake
2017-11-29 16:00:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 10:47:04 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
But I think the UK should go along with the vast majority of other
countries, and drive on the right side of the road, not the left.
[...] you should probably start your campaign in the US Virgin
Islands, for which an executive order from President Trump might be
sufficient.
Don't forget to send some 7-year olds to monitor progress.
As Ken is new, he probably won't pick up that reference. A few years
ago it was pointed out that they drive on the left in the US Virgin
Islands, and all the sites you can find on the web, complete with
photos of road signs in the US Virgin Islands, agree. However, one
frequent poster said no, because he had visited the US Virgin Islands
with his Mummy and Daddy when he was a wee lad of 7, and said that if
they had driven on the left he would have noticed and would remember 55
or so years later.
Thanks. No, I missed that reference entirely.

But even if I had been here when it was pointed out, I might have
Snidely
2017-11-30 07:52:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 10:47:04 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
But I think the UK should go along with the vast majority of other
countries, and drive on the right side of the road, not the left.
[...] you should probably start your campaign in the US Virgin
Islands, for which an executive order from President Trump might be
sufficient.
Don't forget to send some 7-year olds to monitor progress.
As Ken is new, he probably won't pick up that reference. A few years
ago it was pointed out that they drive on the left in the US Virgin
Islands, and all the sites you can find on the web, complete with
photos of road signs in the US Virgin Islands, agree. However, one
frequent poster said no, because he had visited the US Virgin Islands
with his Mummy and Daddy when he was a wee lad of 7, and said that if
they had driven on the left he would have noticed and would remember 55
or so years later.
Thanks. No, I missed that reference entirely.
But even if I had been here when it was pointed out, I might have
forgotten it by now. <g>
I missed it, and I was already immersed in the group by that time.

/dps
--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean
J. J. Lodder
2017-11-30 10:39:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
But I think the UK should go along with the vast majority of other
countries, and drive on the right side of the road, not the left.
[...] you should probably start your campaign in the US Virgin
Islands, for which an executive order from President Trump might be
sufficient.
Don't forget to send some 7-year olds to monitor progress.
As Ken is new, he probably won't pick up that reference. A few years
ago it was pointed out that they drive on the left in the US Virgin
Islands, and all the sites you can find on the web, complete with
photos of road signs in the US Virgin Islands, agree. However, one
frequent poster said no, because he had visited the US Virgin Islands
with his Mummy and Daddy when he was a wee lad of 7, and said that if
they had driven on the left he would have noticed and would remember 55
or so years later.
Not that old, about two and a half years ago.
The reference is in the 'A sticky requirement' thread.

And with a cross-reference to another thread:
PTD does not seem to have grasped the fact
that human memory is always a reconstruction.
That is why it can be completely unreliable,
especially in details.
There is no tape recorder inside,
there can be no play-back.

Humans fool themselves into thinking there is,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-30 12:41:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
But I think the UK should go along with the vast majority of other
countries, and drive on the right side of the road, not the left.
[...] you should probably start your campaign in the US Virgin
Islands, for which an executive order from President Trump might be
sufficient.
Don't forget to send some 7-year olds to monitor progress.
As Ken is new, he probably won't pick up that reference. A few years
ago it was pointed out that they drive on the left in the US Virgin
Islands, and all the sites you can find on the web, complete with
photos of road signs in the US Virgin Islands, agree. However, one
frequent poster said no, because he had visited the US Virgin Islands
with his Mummy and Daddy when he was a wee lad of 7, and said that if
they had driven on the left he would have noticed and would remember 55
or so years later.
Not that old, about two and a half years ago.
The reference is in the 'A sticky requirement' thread.
PTD does not seem to have grasped the fact
that human memory is always a reconstruction.
That is why it can be completely unreliable,
especially in details.
There is no tape recorder inside,
there can be no play-back.
Humans fool themselves into thinking there is,
I wonder whether you can teach that to Athel Cornish-Bowden. Something about old dogs?

For instance, he hasn't apologized for once again lying about what was actually said in that thread.
J. J. Lodder
2017-11-30 15:41:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
But I think the UK should go along with the vast majority of other
countries, and drive on the right side of the road, not the left.
[...] you should probably start your campaign in the US Virgin
Islands, for which an executive order from President Trump might be
sufficient.
Don't forget to send some 7-year olds to monitor progress.
As Ken is new, he probably won't pick up that reference. A few years
ago it was pointed out that they drive on the left in the US Virgin
Islands, and all the sites you can find on the web, complete with
photos of road signs in the US Virgin Islands, agree. However, one
frequent poster said no, because he had visited the US Virgin Islands
with his Mummy and Daddy when he was a wee lad of 7, and said that if
they had driven on the left he would have noticed and would remember 55
or so years later.
Not that old, about two and a half years ago.
The reference is in the 'A sticky requirement' thread.
PTD does not seem to have grasped the fact
that human memory is always a reconstruction.
That is why it can be completely unreliable,
especially in details.
There is no tape recorder inside,
there can be no play-back.
Humans fool themselves into thinking there is,
I wonder whether you can teach that to Athel Cornish-Bowden. Something about old dogs?
For instance, he hasn't apologized for once again lying about what was
actually said in that thread.
Don't try bluffing your way through it with me.
I have the thread archived.
See for example Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>

Athel is right about it,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-30 17:49:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
But I think the UK should go along with the vast majority of other
countries, and drive on the right side of the road, not the left.
[...] you should probably start your campaign in the US Virgin
Islands, for which an executive order from President Trump might be
sufficient.
Don't forget to send some 7-year olds to monitor progress.
As Ken is new, he probably won't pick up that reference. A few years
ago it was pointed out that they drive on the left in the US Virgin
Islands, and all the sites you can find on the web, complete with
photos of road signs in the US Virgin Islands, agree. However, one
frequent poster said no, because he had visited the US Virgin Islands
with his Mummy and Daddy when he was a wee lad of 7, and said that if
they had driven on the left he would have noticed and would remember 55
or so years later.
Not that old, about two and a half years ago.
The reference is in the 'A sticky requirement' thread.
PTD does not seem to have grasped the fact
that human memory is always a reconstruction.
That is why it can be completely unreliable,
especially in details.
There is no tape recorder inside,
there can be no play-back.
Humans fool themselves into thinking there is,
I wonder whether you can teach that to Athel Cornish-Bowden. Something about old dogs?
For instance, he hasn't apologized for once again lying about what was
actually said in that thread.
Don't try bluffing your way through it with me.
I have the thread archived.
Athel is right about it,
Then you, too, are not reading what I wrote. Hint: Consider the exact word at
which I pointed out his lie. (Of course to do that, you'd have to look at what
I actually wrote in responding to his lie, not someone else's quotation of the
original lie.)
J. J. Lodder
2017-11-30 19:59:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
But I think the UK should go along with the vast majority of other
countries, and drive on the right side of the road, not the left.
[...] you should probably start your campaign in the US Virgin
Islands, for which an executive order from President Trump might be
sufficient.
Don't forget to send some 7-year olds to monitor progress.
As Ken is new, he probably won't pick up that reference. A few
years ago it was pointed out that they drive on the left in the US
Virgin Islands, and all the sites you can find on the web,
complete with photos of road signs in the US Virgin Islands,
agree. However, one frequent poster said no, because he had
visited the US Virgin Islands with his Mummy and Daddy when he was
a wee lad of 7, and said that if they had driven on the left he
would have noticed and would remember 55 or so years later.
Not that old, about two and a half years ago.
The reference is in the 'A sticky requirement' thread.
PTD does not seem to have grasped the fact
that human memory is always a reconstruction.
That is why it can be completely unreliable,
especially in details.
There is no tape recorder inside,
there can be no play-back.
Humans fool themselves into thinking there is,
I wonder whether you can teach that to Athel Cornish-Bowden. Something
about old dogs?
For instance, he hasn't apologized for once again lying about what was
actually said in that thread.
Don't try bluffing your way through it with me.
I have the thread archived.
Athel is right about it,
Then you, too, are not reading what I wrote.
I did.
It's quoted in full in the Message-ID I gave.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Hint: Consider the exact word at
which I pointed out his lie. (Of course to do that, you'd have to look at what
I actually wrote in responding to his lie, not someone else's quotation of the
original lie.)
I did look at what you actually wrote. (and for Athel idem)
You are obviously wrong.

Again, there no point in bluffing about it.
I have the whole thread archived,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-30 20:29:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
But I think the UK should go along with the vast majority of other
countries, and drive on the right side of the road, not the left.
[...] you should probably start your campaign in the US Virgin
Islands, for which an executive order from President Trump might be
sufficient.
Don't forget to send some 7-year olds to monitor progress.
As Ken is new, he probably won't pick up that reference. A few
years ago it was pointed out that they drive on the left in the US
Virgin Islands, and all the sites you can find on the web,
complete with photos of road signs in the US Virgin Islands,
agree. However, one frequent poster said no, because he had
visited the US Virgin Islands with his Mummy and Daddy when he was
a wee lad of 7, and said that if they had driven on the left he
would have noticed and would remember 55 or so years later.
Not that old, about two and a half years ago.
The reference is in the 'A sticky requirement' thread.
PTD does not seem to have grasped the fact
that human memory is always a reconstruction.
That is why it can be completely unreliable,
especially in details.
There is no tape recorder inside,
there can be no play-back.
Humans fool themselves into thinking there is,
I wonder whether you can teach that to Athel Cornish-Bowden. Something
about old dogs?
For instance, he hasn't apologized for once again lying about what was
actually said in that thread.
Don't try bluffing your way through it with me.
I have the thread archived.
Athel is right about it,
Then you, too, are not reading what I wrote.
I did.
It's quoted in full in the Message-ID I gave.
Clicking on that link yields nothing but a Captcha-like checkbox. "Continue"
puts me right back in this message.
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Hint: Consider the exact word at
which I pointed out his lie. (Of course to do that, you'd have to look at what
I actually wrote in responding to his lie, not someone else's quotation of the
original lie.)
I did look at what you actually wrote. (and for Athel idem)
You are obviously wrong.
Again, there no point in bluffing about it.
I have the whole thread archived,
If you can prove that my father was on the *Homeric* in March of 1959, then you
are as remarkable a physicist as Banerjee. Just as two objects can't occupy
the same space at the same time, so also can one object not be in two places
at the same time.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-12-01 09:44:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[ ... ]
Don't try bluffing your way through it with me.
I have the thread archived.
Unfortunately that link takes me to "No such article". Would you be
willing to post the text of it, if it isn't too long?
Athel is right about it,
I expect so, but I've been wrong before. Checking the truth of what PTD
says is like checking the truth of what President Trump says: one has a
pretty good idea in advance of what the result will be.
--
athel
J. J. Lodder
2017-12-01 11:04:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ... ]
Don't try bluffing your way through it with me.
I have the thread archived.
Unfortunately that link takes me to "No such article". Would you be
willing to post the text of it, if it isn't too long?
Athel is right about it,
I expect so, but I've been wrong before. Checking the truth of what PTD
says is like checking the truth of what President Trump says: one has a
pretty good idea in advance of what the result will be.
Your memory was accurate.
The full text of what you wrote at the time is
(following PTD's memory claim and PD's blowing of it)
========================================================================
From: Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: A sticky requirement
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 14:51:19 +0200
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
[snipping only some irrelevant headers]
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 11:14:32 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Come to that, can anyone explain why the US Virgin Islands, which
have
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
no land border with anywhere else, drive on the left?
I call left-hand traffic "island traffic", because it's mostly
islands that hold on to it. But that doesn't really explain why an
island would have started out that way.
The US VI started out Danish. Does that account for it?
Though I suspect that if they'd been driving on the left when I was
in St.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Thomas in March 1959 I'd have noticed, and remembered that remarkable
fact
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
even now (it's the sort of thing that would make an impression on a
small
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
boy), so perhaps Athel is thinking of the adjacent but less
significant BVI.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
http://www.worldstandards.eu/cars/list-of-left-driving-countries/
United States Virgin Islands left
Virgin Islands (British) left
Virgin Islands (USA) left
Yes, but what PTD remembers from March 1959 trumps any supposedly
authoritative source of current information.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It seems to list the US Virgins twice.
It has entries for "England", "Northern Ireland", "Scotland", "United
Kingdom ", and "Wales", also for "Holland (officially the Netherlands)"
and "Netherlands".
--
athel
========================================================================

Your memory of it is accurate,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2017-12-01 13:46:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Don't try bluffing your way through it with me.
I have the thread archived.
Unfortunately that link takes me to "No such article". Would you be
willing to post the text of it, if it isn't too long?
Post by J. J. Lodder
Athel is right about it,
I expect so, but I've been wrong before. Checking the truth of what PTD
says is like checking the truth of what President Trump says: one has a
pretty good idea in advance of what the result will be.
Your memory was accurate.
The full text of what you wrote at the time is
(following PTD's memory claim and PD's blowing of it)
Nope. You copied a subsequent message, or you omitted the relevant portion of
the message you quoted.
J. J. Lodder
2017-12-01 20:50:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Don't try bluffing your way through it with me.
I have the thread archived.
Unfortunately that link takes me to "No such article". Would you be
willing to post the text of it, if it isn't too long?
Post by J. J. Lodder
Athel is right about it,
I expect so, but I've been wrong before. Checking the truth of what PTD
says is like checking the truth of what President Trump says: one has a
pretty good idea in advance of what the result will be.
Your memory was accurate.
The full text of what you wrote at the time is
(following PTD's memory claim and PD's blowing of it)
Nope. You copied a subsequent message, or you omitted the relevant portion of
the message you quoted.
Nope, yuor text is integrally quoted in full in it.
Can't you stop wriggling for once?

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2017-12-02 03:54:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Don't try bluffing your way through it with me.
I have the thread archived.
Unfortunately that link takes me to "No such article". Would you be
willing to post the text of it, if it isn't too long?
Post by J. J. Lodder
Athel is right about it,
I expect so, but I've been wrong before. Checking the truth of what PTD
says is like checking the truth of what President Trump says: one has a
pretty good idea in advance of what the result will be.
Your memory was accurate.
The full text of what you wrote at the time is
(following PTD's memory claim and PD's blowing of it)
Nope. You copied a subsequent message, or you omitted the relevant portion of
the message you quoted.
Nope, yuor text is integrally quoted in full in it.
Can't you stop wriggling for once?
Then I'll say it again. Give some reason to believe that my father (or "Daddy,"
as Athel chose to put it) was on that trip.

And explain why you ignored this question the first time.
J. J. Lodder
2017-12-02 10:01:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Don't try bluffing your way through it with me.
I have the thread archived.
Unfortunately that link takes me to "No such article". Would you be
willing to post the text of it, if it isn't too long?
Post by J. J. Lodder
Athel is right about it,
I expect so, but I've been wrong before. Checking the truth of
what PTD says is like checking the truth of what President Trump
says: one has a pretty good idea in advance of what the result
will be.
Your memory was accurate.
The full text of what you wrote at the time is
(following PTD's memory claim and PD's blowing of it)
Nope. You copied a subsequent message, or you omitted the relevant
portion of the message you quoted.
Nope, yuor text is integrally quoted in full in it.
Can't you stop wriggling for once?
Then I'll say it again. Give some reason to believe that my father (or
"Daddy," as Athel chose to put it) was on that trip.
And explain why you ignored this question the first time.
FYI, you are in the wrong thread,

Jan
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-12-02 13:48:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Don't try bluffing your way through it with me.
I have the thread archived.
Unfortunately that link takes me to "No such article". Would you be
willing to post the text of it, if it isn't too long?
Post by J. J. Lodder
Athel is right about it,
I expect so, but I've been wrong before. Checking the truth of
what PTD says is like checking the truth of what President Trump
says: one has a pretty good idea in advance of what the result
will be.
Your memory was accurate.
The full text of what you wrote at the time is
(following PTD's memory claim and PD's blowing of it)
Nope. You copied a subsequent message, or you omitted the relevant
portion of the message you quoted.
Nope, yuor text is integrally quoted in full in it.
Can't you stop wriggling for once?
Then I'll say it again. Give some reason to believe that my father (or
"Daddy," as Athel chose to put it) was on that trip.
And explain why you ignored this question the first time.
FYI, you are in the wrong thread,
True, but I'll stay here. I've been wondering what PTD might claim as
lies. I accept that I made a possibly unjustified assumption that his
parents took him to the US Virgin Islands, probably because I wouldn't
have dreamt of sending one of my daughters overseas at 8 years old with
anyone other than my wife, except perhaps with an official school party
supervised by a teacher (preferably female) that I knew well. I was
supposing that his parents were responsible people. However, it's
certainly possible that he went with a scoutmaster or a Roman Catholic
priest. Does that count as a "lie"? I would regard it as an error due
to an unjustified assumption.

Then there is the question of his age when he went to the US Virgin
Islands. I thought he was 7 (though it wasn't me but Quinn who
mentioned that age when the present discussion started). However, if he
went in March 1959 then he was a big boy of 8 at the time. Does
misremembering the age count as a "lie"?
--
athel
David Kleinecke
2017-12-02 17:15:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Don't try bluffing your way through it with me.
I have the thread archived.
Unfortunately that link takes me to "No such article". Would you be
willing to post the text of it, if it isn't too long?
Post by J. J. Lodder
Athel is right about it,
I expect so, but I've been wrong before. Checking the truth of
what PTD says is like checking the truth of what President Trump
says: one has a pretty good idea in advance of what the result
will be.
Your memory was accurate.
The full text of what you wrote at the time is
(following PTD's memory claim and PD's blowing of it)
Nope. You copied a subsequent message, or you omitted the relevant
portion of the message you quoted.
Nope, yuor text is integrally quoted in full in it.
Can't you stop wriggling for once?
Then I'll say it again. Give some reason to believe that my father (or
"Daddy," as Athel chose to put it) was on that trip.
And explain why you ignored this question the first time.
FYI, you are in the wrong thread,
True, but I'll stay here. I've been wondering what PTD might claim as
lies. I accept that I made a possibly unjustified assumption that his
parents took him to the US Virgin Islands, probably because I wouldn't
have dreamt of sending one of my daughters overseas at 8 years old with
anyone other than my wife, except perhaps with an official school party
supervised by a teacher (preferably female) that I knew well. I was
supposing that his parents were responsible people. However, it's
certainly possible that he went with a scoutmaster or a Roman Catholic
priest. Does that count as a "lie"? I would regard it as an error due
to an unjustified assumption.
Then there is the question of his age when he went to the US Virgin
Islands. I thought he was 7 (though it wasn't me but Quinn who
mentioned that age when the present discussion started). However, if he
went in March 1959 then he was a big boy of 8 at the time. Does
misremembering the age count as a "lie"?
There is wide variation in what people dub a lie. I am
personally way over on one end and almost never use the
word except for very explicitly proven mis-statements.
Other people call even minor inaccuracies "lies".

De gustibus.
Rich Ulrich
2017-12-02 19:05:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 09:15:15 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
True, but I'll stay here. I've been wondering what PTD might claim as
lies. I accept that I made a possibly unjustified assumption that his
parents took him to the US Virgin Islands, probably because I wouldn't
have dreamt of sending one of my daughters overseas at 8 years old with
anyone other than my wife, except perhaps with an official school party
supervised by a teacher (preferably female) that I knew well. I was
supposing that his parents were responsible people. However, it's
certainly possible that he went with a scoutmaster or a Roman Catholic
priest. Does that count as a "lie"? I would regard it as an error due
to an unjustified assumption.
Then there is the question of his age when he went to the US Virgin
Islands. I thought he was 7 (though it wasn't me but Quinn who
mentioned that age when the present discussion started). However, if he
went in March 1959 then he was a big boy of 8 at the time. Does
misremembering the age count as a "lie"?
There is wide variation in what people dub a lie. I am
personally way over on one end and almost never use the
word except for very explicitly proven mis-statements.
Other people call even minor inaccuracies "lies".
De gustibus.
Not a complete description of that end of the range, of lying --
"Proven wrong when the speaker knew it was srong, and made
with the intent to mislead" is the narrower specification.

Then there is the whole problem of "misleading". Is that a
whole class of lie, even when the misleading comment is
literally true? What if the lie gives a "better picture" than the
literal truth, which I think is the rationalization of many vicious
rumor-mongers?

The dictionaries often show "lie" as a synonym for prevarication
and equivocation. And those are two concepts which (it has
seemed to me) have different implications and shades of meaninng
between BrEng and AmEng. And different moral standing,
--
Rich Ulrich
David Kleinecke
2017-12-02 19:52:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 09:15:15 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
True, but I'll stay here. I've been wondering what PTD might claim as
lies. I accept that I made a possibly unjustified assumption that his
parents took him to the US Virgin Islands, probably because I wouldn't
have dreamt of sending one of my daughters overseas at 8 years old with
anyone other than my wife, except perhaps with an official school party
supervised by a teacher (preferably female) that I knew well. I was
supposing that his parents were responsible people. However, it's
certainly possible that he went with a scoutmaster or a Roman Catholic
priest. Does that count as a "lie"? I would regard it as an error due
to an unjustified assumption.
Then there is the question of his age when he went to the US Virgin
Islands. I thought he was 7 (though it wasn't me but Quinn who
mentioned that age when the present discussion started). However, if he
went in March 1959 then he was a big boy of 8 at the time. Does
misremembering the age count as a "lie"?
There is wide variation in what people dub a lie. I am
personally way over on one end and almost never use the
word except for very explicitly proven mis-statements.
Other people call even minor inaccuracies "lies".
De gustibus.
Not a complete description of that end of the range, of lying --
"Proven wrong when the speaker knew it was srong, and made
with the intent to mislead" is the narrower specification.
Then there is the whole problem of "misleading". Is that a
whole class of lie, even when the misleading comment is
literally true? What if the lie gives a "better picture" than the
literal truth, which I think is the rationalization of many vicious
rumor-mongers?
The dictionaries often show "lie" as a synonym for prevarication
and equivocation. And those are two concepts which (it has
seemed to me) have different implications and shades of meaninng
between BrEng and AmEng. And different moral standing,
I don't think the differences in the meaning of "lie" are
dialectic. I think they are idiosyncratic.
Sam Plusnet
2017-12-02 20:36:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 09:15:15 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
True, but I'll stay here. I've been wondering what PTD might claim as
lies. I accept that I made a possibly unjustified assumption that his
parents took him to the US Virgin Islands, probably because I wouldn't
have dreamt of sending one of my daughters overseas at 8 years old with
anyone other than my wife, except perhaps with an official school party
supervised by a teacher (preferably female) that I knew well. I was
supposing that his parents were responsible people. However, it's
certainly possible that he went with a scoutmaster or a Roman Catholic
priest. Does that count as a "lie"? I would regard it as an error due
to an unjustified assumption.
Then there is the question of his age when he went to the US Virgin
Islands. I thought he was 7 (though it wasn't me but Quinn who
mentioned that age when the present discussion started). However, if he
went in March 1959 then he was a big boy of 8 at the time. Does
misremembering the age count as a "lie"?
There is wide variation in what people dub a lie. I am
personally way over on one end and almost never use the
word except for very explicitly proven mis-statements.
Other people call even minor inaccuracies "lies".
De gustibus.
Not a complete description of that end of the range, of lying --
"Proven wrong when the speaker knew it was srong, and made
with the intent to mislead" is the narrower specification.
Then there is the whole problem of "misleading". Is that a
whole class of lie, even when the misleading comment is
literally true? What if the lie gives a "better picture" than the
literal truth, which I think is the rationalization of many vicious
rumor-mongers?
The dictionaries often show "lie" as a synonym for prevarication
and equivocation. And those are two concepts which (it has
seemed to me) have different implications and shades of meaninng
between BrEng and AmEng. And different moral standing,
Interesting.
The (US) Attorney General recently stated "I do not recall" in reply to
a large number of questions whilst under oath.
If we assume that this is not the whole truth, was he lying?
--
Sam Plusnet
David Kleinecke
2017-12-02 21:15:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 09:15:15 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
True, but I'll stay here. I've been wondering what PTD might claim as
lies. I accept that I made a possibly unjustified assumption that his
parents took him to the US Virgin Islands, probably because I wouldn't
have dreamt of sending one of my daughters overseas at 8 years old with
anyone other than my wife, except perhaps with an official school party
supervised by a teacher (preferably female) that I knew well. I was
supposing that his parents were responsible people. However, it's
certainly possible that he went with a scoutmaster or a Roman Catholic
priest. Does that count as a "lie"? I would regard it as an error due
to an unjustified assumption.
Then there is the question of his age when he went to the US Virgin
Islands. I thought he was 7 (though it wasn't me but Quinn who
mentioned that age when the present discussion started). However, if he
went in March 1959 then he was a big boy of 8 at the time. Does
misremembering the age count as a "lie"?
There is wide variation in what people dub a lie. I am
personally way over on one end and almost never use the
word except for very explicitly proven mis-statements.
Other people call even minor inaccuracies "lies".
De gustibus.
Not a complete description of that end of the range, of lying --
"Proven wrong when the speaker knew it was srong, and made
with the intent to mislead" is the narrower specification.
Then there is the whole problem of "misleading". Is that a
whole class of lie, even when the misleading comment is
literally true? What if the lie gives a "better picture" than the
literal truth, which I think is the rationalization of many vicious
rumor-mongers?
The dictionaries often show "lie" as a synonym for prevarication
and equivocation. And those are two concepts which (it has
seemed to me) have different implications and shades of meaninng
between BrEng and AmEng. And different moral standing,
Interesting.
The (US) Attorney General recently stated "I do not recall" in reply to
a large number of questions whilst under oath.
If we assume that this is not the whole truth, was he lying?
Speaking for myself I would limit my condemnation to "probably
not telling the whole truth".
Peter T. Daniels
2017-12-02 23:23:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 09:15:15 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
True, but I'll stay here. I've been wondering what PTD might claim as
lies. I accept that I made a possibly unjustified assumption that his
parents took him to the US Virgin Islands, probably because I wouldn't
have dreamt of sending one of my daughters overseas at 8 years old with
anyone other than my wife, except perhaps with an official school party
supervised by a teacher (preferably female) that I knew well. I was
supposing that his parents were responsible people. However, it's
certainly possible that he went with a scoutmaster or a Roman Catholic
priest. Does that count as a "lie"? I would regard it as an error due
to an unjustified assumption.
Then there is the question of his age when he went to the US Virgin
Islands. I thought he was 7 (though it wasn't me but Quinn who
mentioned that age when the present discussion started). However, if he
went in March 1959 then he was a big boy of 8 at the time. Does
misremembering the age count as a "lie"?
There is wide variation in what people dub a lie. I am
personally way over on one end and almost never use the
word except for very explicitly proven mis-statements.
Other people call even minor inaccuracies "lies".
De gustibus.
Not a complete description of that end of the range, of lying --
"Proven wrong when the speaker knew it was srong, and made
with the intent to mislead" is the narrower specification.
Then there is the whole problem of "misleading". Is that a
whole class of lie, even when the misleading comment is
literally true? What if the lie gives a "better picture" than the
literal truth, which I think is the rationalization of many vicious
rumor-mongers?
The dictionaries often show "lie" as a synonym for prevarication
and equivocation. And those are two concepts which (it has
seemed to me) have different implications and shades of meaninng
between BrEng and AmEng. And different moral standing,
Interesting.
The (US) Attorney General recently stated "I do not recall" in reply to
a large number of questions whilst under oath.
If we assume that this is not the whole truth, was he lying?
Unfortunately there's no way to prove or disprove that particular utterance.

You may recall that his "memory" "improved" when he was shown the photograph
of him and Papadopoulos at the same big table when Papadopoulos offered his
plan for getting in touch with some Russian or other.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-12-02 23:20:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Don't try bluffing your way through it with me.
I have the thread archived.
Unfortunately that link takes me to "No such article". Would you be
willing to post the text of it, if it isn't too long?
Post by J. J. Lodder
Athel is right about it,
I expect so, but I've been wrong before. Checking the truth of
what PTD says is like checking the truth of what President Trump
says: one has a pretty good idea in advance of what the result
will be.
Your memory was accurate.
The full text of what you wrote at the time is
(following PTD's memory claim and PD's blowing of it)
Nope. You copied a subsequent message, or you omitted the relevant
portion of the message you quoted.
Nope, yuor text is integrally quoted in full in it.
Can't you stop wriggling for once?
Then I'll say it again. Give some reason to believe that my father (or
"Daddy," as Athel chose to put it) was on that trip.
And explain why you ignored this question the first time.
FYI, you are in the wrong thread,
True, but I'll stay here. I've been wondering what PTD might claim as
lies. I accept that I made a possibly unjustified assumption that his
parents
In Asshole-world, are parents irrevocably yoked together?

. took him to the US Virgin Islands,

San Juan, Kingston, and St Kitts [a last-minute substitute for Havana; consider
the date]
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
probably because I wouldn't
have dreamt of sending one of my daughters overseas at 8 years old with
anyone other than my wife,
And Asshole necessarily went along?
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
except perhaps with an official school party
supervised by a teacher (preferably female) that I knew well. I was
supposing that his parents were responsible people. However, it's
certainly possible that he went with a scoutmaster or a Roman Catholic
priest. Does that count as a "lie"? I would regard it as an error due
to an unjustified assumption.
Well, what is to be expected of an Asshole Moron that refuses -- out of
justifiable fear of many, many corrections in matters of basic fact -- to read
a person's messages?
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Then there is the question of his age when he went to the US Virgin
Islands. I thought he was 7 (though it wasn't me but Quinn who
mentioned that age when the present discussion started). However, if he
went in March 1959 then he was a big boy of 8 at the time. Does
misremembering the age count as a "lie"?
I don't know where "8" could have come from. Has Asshole forgotten that I
share my birthday with Hector Berlioz and Eliot Carter?
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
2017-12-03 00:23:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I share my birthday with Hector Berlioz and Eliot Carter
^^^^^
Wrong. One Eliot Carter lives in Sonoma, California.
^^^^^
No relationship with the famous Elliott Carter.
^^^^^^^
Both Berlioz and Elliott Carter are *dead*.
Bad omen for PeteY, also born on December 11?

See the habitual name-mangler:
Loading Image...
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
Peter T. Daniels
2017-12-01 13:45:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Don't try bluffing your way through it with me.
I have the thread archived.
Unfortunately that link takes me to "No such article". Would you be
willing to post the text of it, if it isn't too long?
Post by J. J. Lodder
Athel is right about it,
I expect so, but I've been wrong before. Checking the truth of what PTD
says is like checking the truth of what President Trump says: one has a
pretty good idea in advance of what the result will be.
Asshole Moron-Bowden has an extremely tenuous grasp on truth, especially when
he's been afraid to look at what has actually been written.
Joy Beeson
2017-11-27 03:30:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ask anyone what the date today is, and they will NOT reply 2017, November, 26th.
When asked my date of birth, I always give the year first, then the
month, then the day.

But when signing my name, I always put 26 Nov 2017 in the date slot.
Well, I did this morning. I'll say 27 Nov 2017 if the question comes
up tomorrow.
--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii
joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
D. Glenn Arthur Jr.
2017-11-28 19:50:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Neill Massello
The ISO published a standard for date formats many years ago.
In high school in the late 1970s I came up with a system that made sense
to me, that I later found out nearly matched the ISO standard (though I
use a decimal point or a space where ISO uses a 'T'). Part of this was
because I kept getting confused as to which relatives (in four
countries) wrote M/D/Y and which wrote D/M/Y, in letters and on the
backs of old photos, partly because being a mathy sort I liked the idea
of big-endian dates -- the idea of writing "10/1/1978" felt a lot like
writing "forty four and a hundred" for a gross (or "four, forty, ands a
hundred" for the D/M/Y version) -- partly because I ran into 18th & 19th
C. dates just often enough to feel years should be four digits long for
clarity, and a bit later when I got into computers, because big-endian
dates sort correctly with either an alpha sort or a numeric sort and
don't need any special "how to sort dates" code. (This especially
matters to me when putting dates in filenames and wanting directory
listings to sort them correctly.)

For my own use, I go with YYYYMMDD, YYMMDD.HHMM, or YYYYMMDD.HHMMSS. If
I'm expecting anyone else to see it, I add hyphens and colons and change
the dot to a 'T' or a space depending on my audience.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Neill Massello
YYYY-MM-DD is short, easy for humans to read but hard for them to
misinterpret, ---?
Aye. So far nobody who customarily writes MM/DD/YY or DD/MM/YY has
complained that YYYY-MM-DD is confusing. I occasionally get grumbling
about writing 17:20 instead of 5:20 pm[*], but never for writing dates
year-first.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ask anyone what the date today is, and they will NOT reply 2017, November, 26th.
No, they'll probably say "the 28th". But if you ask them to write it
down, few will merely write "28".

And I note that we do not write times as "15 before 10" even though
folks say aloud "quarter to ten" a bit more often (around here) than
"nine forty five" -- though I'll grant that both forms do get spoken.
As are answers like "quarter of" or "half past" or "ten after" without
specifying an hour. (And I _have_ heard, in casual conversation on
land, folks give the time as "six bells" and fail to anticipate the
confused looks from us landlubbers. But I think I only have one friend
who'll casually give times as how long before or after Vespers, or
Matins, or Compline.)


I've described how I usually write dates, and how I think they ought to
be written, but in specific contexts other forms can make sense / feel
right. If writing to other Christians on religious topics in a somewhat
formal register, I might go as far as, "28 November, in the year of our
Lord two thousand seventeen," or "28 Nov, A.D. 2017". (If I'm writing
for a not-all-Christian audience and/or writing in other than a
religious context, I tend to go with "CE" and "BCE" instead of "AD" and
"BC" -- or, of course, leave that bit off entirely when I'm not talking
about historical periods that include BCE dates.) It's not that other
ways of writing dates are never, ever apropriate, but where clarity and
brevity matter more than style or tone, YYYY-MM-DD seems to work best.
A little more formal is YYYY Monthname DD. For a casual tone in a
context where the month and year can be inferred or have already been
stated, writing "the 5th" or "next Tuesday" suffices. So _sometimes_ we
want to write as we speak, yes. But for a _general_ format there's no
expectation that writing is merely transcribed speech, and YYYY-MM-DD is
quick and clear -- and puts the year up front so that if you're talking
about next year or last year instead of this year, that's less likely to
get missed.

One place where I do deviate from YYYY-MM-DD is when using calendars I
don't know as well, comparing a date in different calendars, or using
the dating of the period for dates before 1 Jan became the first day of
the year everywhere. If I'm not sure (a) how the months are counted or
(b) whether month numbers are ever used by folks using a particular
calendar, I go YYYY Monthname DD. For example, today is:

Gregorian: 2017 November 28
Julian: 2017 November 15
Hebrew: 5778 Kislev 10
Islamic: 1439 Rabi`al-Awwal 09
Persian: 1396 Azar 07
Coptic: 1734 Hathor 19
Indian (civil): 1939 Agrahayana 07
Mayan: 0.0.0.13.0.5.0.3

(And yes, I started using the longer form of the Mayan calendar as a way
of pushing back against the 2012 "end of the Mayan calendar / end of the
world" crap. The calendar extends beyond their predicted "universe gets
remade" date, and even that latter date is sometime in the Gregorian
year 4772. We've got a while.)

The real nuisance wrt writing dates, is the off-by-one difference
between astronomical dates and Gregorian dates earlier than 1 CE.
The year before Gregorian 1 CE is 1 BCE, and the year before that is 2
BCE. For astronomers, the year before year 1 is year 0, and the year
before that is -1. But at least the presence of _either_ a minus sign
or a "BCE" or "BC" indication is enough to indicate which of the two
calendars is being used.


[*] Though not as many complaints for "17:20" as for saying aloud
"seventeen o'clock" instead of "seventeen hundred", or for calling 17:20
"a third past seventeen". Note that when giving performance times in an
announcement of an upcoming performance, I will sometimes switch from
24-hour time to am/pm for the ease of my readers.
--
D. Glenn Arthur Jr./The Human Vibrator, ***@panix.com
Due to hand/wrist problems my newsreading time varies so I may miss followups.
"Being a _man_ means knowing that one has a choice not to act like a 'man'."
http://www.dglenn.org/ http://dglenn.dreamwidth.org
Peter Moylan
2017-11-29 00:04:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D. Glenn Arthur Jr.
(And yes, I started using the longer form of the Mayan calendar as a way
of pushing back against the 2012 "end of the Mayan calendar / end of the
world" crap. The calendar extends beyond their predicted "universe gets
remade" date, and even that latter date is sometime in the Gregorian
year 4772. We've got a while.)
I continue to be puzzled by the assumption that ancient civilisations
had a better understanding of the universe than we have.

It's like that fuss, a year or two ago, when someone noticed that apes
peeled bananas differently from humans, and concluded that we should
switch to the method used by the banana "experts".
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
RH Draney
2017-11-29 06:30:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by D. Glenn Arthur Jr.
(And yes, I started using the longer form of the Mayan calendar as a way
of pushing back against the 2012 "end of the Mayan calendar / end of the
world" crap.  The calendar extends beyond their predicted "universe gets
remade" date, and even that latter date is sometime in the Gregorian
year 4772.  We've got a while.)
I continue to be puzzled by the assumption that ancient civilisations
had a better understanding of the universe than we have.
It's like that fuss, a year or two ago, when someone noticed that apes
peeled bananas differently from humans, and concluded that we should
switch to the method used by the banana "experts".
That "someone" was me, and I stand by the conclusion...not so much the
ancient astronaut corollary....r
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-11-29 09:41:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by D. Glenn Arthur Jr.
(And yes, I started using the longer form of the Mayan calendar as a way
of pushing back against the 2012 "end of the Mayan calendar / end of the
world" crap.  The calendar extends beyond their predicted "universe gets
remade" date, and even that latter date is sometime in the Gregorian
year 4772.  We've got a while.)
I continue to be puzzled by the assumption that ancient civilisations
had a better understanding of the universe than we have.
It's like that fuss, a year or two ago, when someone noticed that apes
peeled bananas differently from humans, and concluded that we should
switch to the method used by the banana "experts".
That "someone" was me, and I stand by the conclusion...not so much the
ancient astronaut corollary....r
Me too. Not because I want to imitate chimpanzees, but because their
method is easier and better.
--
athel
Snidely
2017-11-29 09:04:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D. Glenn Arthur Jr.
Post by Neill Massello
The ISO published a standard for date formats many years ago.
In high school in the late 1970s I came up with a system that made sense
to me, that I later found out nearly matched the ISO standard (though I
use a decimal point or a space where ISO uses a 'T').
I believe the ISO spec allows 'T' or ' ' between date and time, and
both are validated by it. And Python libraries support both formats
when producing ISO date-time strings.

I think I've read through an archived draft of the spec, but to have a
real copy would involve my putting up some dough (USD, not USP). There
are detailed summaries. And the predecessor DIN documents might be
more available.

/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
Loading...