Making someone look foolish.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Making someone look foolish.

Jamison Painter
Again, I apologise to the group for my harsh tone in the past post. But Michael O insists on attempting (not very successfully, but attempting nonetheless) to make me look foolish. That is a bad idea, as it makes me cranky. I CAN, and shall, make him look and possibly feel about 3 mm tall. Don't blame me for someone else's stupidity. I only give what I get. I am capable of playing nasty hardball when pushed. Thank you.

Regards,
Jamison

24 Germinal CCXXVII, Arugula

Jamison Painter <[hidden email]> wrote:

"You must be the change you want to see in the world."

Mahatma Gandhi


On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 9:31 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

[quote]

“But its fallacious use of astronomical quarters as terrestrial “seasons”,…”—Michael Ossipoff

.

Except that the Autumnal Equinox indicates the arrival of Autumn in the Northern Hemisphere. The Winter Solstice indicates the arrival of Winter. The Spring Equinox indicates the arrival of Spring. The Summer Solstice indicates the arrival of Summer, so...

[/quote]

.

Thanks to Jamison for demonstrating and exemplifying the confusion that I referred to: the confusion of astronomical-quarters with terrestrial-seasons.


There is no confusion about what season it is unless you have no brain. I know that applies to you, but it doesn't to most people.

.

Call astronomical-quarters “seasons”, and presto!: Astronomical quarters are seasons  :D

.

[quote]

Your point, aside from the one on top of your head? 

[/quote]

.

With Jameson, this forum is sounding like an elementary-school schoolyard  :D


My name is spelt with an i, not an e. You have seen it many times. I understand that your pointed head leaves little room for a sizable brain, but please try to get it right. 

.

[quote]

“…and its seasonal details that are false and incorrect for most of the Earth.”—Michael Ossipoff

.

The [seasonal-information of the] French Republican Calendar is valid for most of the Northern Hemisphere.

[/quote]

.

No, it isn’t.

.

Any semblance or pretense of seasonal meaning that the FRC’s seasonal information might have in more northern locations is pretty much absent south of latitude 30 N.


It is certainly valid for that part of the Northern Hemisphere where most of the world's food is grown. For example, it is valid in the United States, in most parts of the farming areas, including Iowa. 

.

(For the area-percentages given below, the Earth is assumed to be perfectly spherical. That assumption is more than accurate enough for these purposes. And of course seasonal matters don’t strictly follow latitude-lines, but latitude is a useful general predictor.)

.

Half of the Northern Hemisphere is south of lat 30 N.

.

In other words, half of the Northern Hemisphere is at latitudes at which the FRC’s seasonal-information is meaningless.

.

What about in the Northern-Hemisphere north of lat 30 N.?   West-coasts at U.S. latitudes  are popular and populous, and typically, at those temperate west-coasts, you’d be laughed off the stage if you spoke of “Snow-Month”.

.

In order for FRC’s seasonal references to be meaningful in even half of the Northern-Hemisphere, it would be necessary for them to be meaningful everywhere north of lat 30 N.  They aren’t.

.

In other words, then, the FRC’s seasonal-references are, at best, meaningful in less than half of the Northern-Hemisphere.


They are meaningful where most of the food is grown, that most of the world eats. 

.

[quote]

That would be about half of the Earth.

[/quote]

.

The region north of lat 30 N, where the FRC’s seasonal-information even might mean something consists of only ¼ of the Earth’s surface-area.


I can accept one-fourth. It is the one-fourth where most of the world's food is grown, and exported to the rest of the world. Go to your local supermarket, and check where the food is grown. It will be in that area that you yourself have pointed out. Not all of the food, but most of it. 

.

In fact, the region north of the tropics consists of only about 30% of the world’s surface-area.

.

What about population?

.

Most of the world’s population resides south of lat 30 N.

.

In fact, half of the world’s population resides south of lat 27 N.

.

In other words, for most of the world’s population, FRC’s seasonal information is meaningless for where they live.


The population is irrelevant. What is relevant is where the food is grown. 

.

[quote]

And it is the half where about 80% of the world's food is grown.

[/quote]

.

Curiously, Jameson earlier said that his “80%” figure was a guess, and might be wrong. But now he’s using it as established fact, and repeating it throughout the message that I’m replying to. 

.

A quick search didn’t find information about that. Jameson wouldn’t make I up, would he?


I agree that it is a guess. I thought you might be intelligent enough to realise that. Now that I know the depth of your idiocy, I shall try harder. 

.

One thing that I found in that quick search was a list of crop-acreage in various countries. It sums roughly the same, north and south of lat 30 N.

.

FRC a useful “farmer’s almanac”?  Farmers everywhere need and already have more accurate regional seasonal information than the FRC.


Its good for a quick look. That is all it was intended to be, although if you look at the northern hemisphere, when the calendar suggests that a food should be in season (ie, when that food's day comes up), it generally is. Ialso thought you were capable of figuring that out. Again, I assumed too far that you might have a brain that works. 

.

[quote]

So much for your multiple statements of "invalid for most of the Earth".

[/quote]

.

See above.


See above. 

.

[quote]

“But my point was that any calendar, including South-Solstice WeekDate, or 12X30 with 10-day weeks and blank-days, can have, added to it, all sorts of seasonal information and details…but hopefully with local accuracy.

.

For example, any publisher, purchaser or at-home constructor of a South-Solstice WeekDate wall-calendar could add to it any meaningful and accurate seasonal information that they want to add.”—Michael Ossipoff

.

This much is probably true. That could be done for the FRC as well

[/quote]

Exactly, and so there’s no need to want to coercively impose, on most of the world’s people, a seasons-description that is meaningless and irrelevant to them.


It is relevant in terms of living in Berundi, and knowing when the grapes that you eat are going to be in season and exported to your impoverished country that cannot feed itself, which is why Empire was a far better thing than people give it credit for. 

.

[quote]

 …although it would be entirely unnecessary for most of the Northern Hemisphere.

[/quote]

.

Incorrect. As I explained above, FRC’s terrestrial-seasonal information would be relevant in less than half of the Northern Hemisphere.

.

…and on only about ¼ of the Earth’s surface.  


The one-fourth where most of the world's food is grown. Again, I can accept 25%. It is the only 25% that matters. 

.

…and to fewer than half of the world’s people.


So what? What those people eat should be important to them, and therefore, they would want a calendar that accurately reports what will be in season when. 

.

[quote]

Now, the FRC's seasons are related directly to the Il-de-France region, and to a lesser degree [less than half of] the Northern Hemisphere. Nevertheless, a calendar whose months are named after seasons or activities done in them is inherently more seasonal than a calendar that is mostly numbers and letters…

[/quote]

No, not really.  Not when its months are named for seasons and activities that are inapplicable to the time when those months occur over ¾ of the Earth’s surface, and to most of the world’s people.

Again, 75% relies on 25% for food to live, which is probably why 75% should be colonised. But that is not the case and never will be, so let's move on. Most of the world's people need to know when the food they eat will be in the market. The FRC does a very good job of indicating that. 

.

[quote]

, even if it [South-Solstice WeekDate] "provid(es) a good indication of the Solar ecliptic-longitude".

[/quote]

.

…provides that without all of that inaccurate terrestrial seasonal information.   …terrestrial-seasonal information that’s meaningless and irrelevant over ¾ of the Earth’s surface, and to most of the world’s people.

.

…and with better calendrical convenience, simplicity, un-arbitrarieness and minimal-ness than that of FRC or other months-calendars.

.

You know, it’s possible to pay respects to the French Republic, and borrow what was good about FRC, without pretending that its seasons are applicable everywhere.   …or copying its months-structure.

.

…because its months-structure wasn’t the stand-out or necessary aspect of FRC (and is just one of a big arbitrary array of months-proposals, and, for various reasons, arguably isn’t desirable). 

.

FRC’s genuine contribution, innovation and value was its nature-seasonal character. That can (only) be achieved locally or regionally, and voluntarily, as I described in the passage that you quoted above.

.

[quote]

And good luck creating a calendar that is equally nature-oriented

[/quote]

.

The same kinds of nature-seasonal information could be added to any calendrical-structure, for any region.

.

 [quote]

“Yes, FRC was tried and rejected. That hardly enhances its status.”—Michael Ossipoff

.

It was tried in the late 18th and early 19th Century by one country.

[/quote]

.

…and rejected.

.

[quote]

It could be adopted more widely.

[/quote]

.

…and pigs could fly.

.

Yes, the mistake could be repeated.  …but won’t be.

[/quote]

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

FRC was rejected, at least in large part, due to its Sabbath problems  (resulting from 10-day week and blank-days).


Everything Mikey wrote between my last text in this email and this one is entirely irrelevant, and did not require commenting on, but this does. The point, as I have stated multiple times, is the break the calendar from its religious associations. The FRC does this quite nicely. 

.

Later, through some remarkable coincidence, Eastman’s International Fixed Calendar and Achellis’ World Calendar were rejected, with that same reason as the main reason expressed. (…caused by blank-days)

.

Go figure!

.

What does it take to learn a lesson?


Just because a calendar was rejected, doesn't mean it should have been. Therefore, you have to go back to it. It really is that simple. Just because you can't learn, don't assume that the rest of the planet can't. Grow up. As I said in my last post to you, try harder. You STILL aren't succeeding at winning a basic argument.

.

Michael Ossipoff

.

16 Sa

1430 UTC


Jamison
24 Germinal CCXXVII, Arugula 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making someone look foolish.

sparkielee
You seem to be a nice guy, Jamison. We can agree to disagree in this group. He doesn't have to agree with you, but we all need to respect each other. I've been thinking of starting a calendar group on Facebook and would love to have all of you in it. But I'm in about as many groups as Facebook would allow me to be in.

I admin quite a few groups. I welcome Michael's ideas, but I require people to respect each other in my groups. 

I think all of our calendars are interesting and many of them have their advantages.

Please don't get discouraged, Jamison.

Paula

24 Germinal CCXXVII, Arugula
The Saturday that went too fast for me.

On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 3:45 PM Jamison Painter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Again, I apologise to the group for my harsh tone in the past post. But Michael O insists on attempting (not very successfully, but attempting nonetheless) to make me look foolish. That is a bad idea, as it makes me cranky. I CAN, and shall, make him look and possibly feel about 3 mm tall. Don't blame me for someone else's stupidity. I only give what I get. I am capable of playing nasty hardball when pushed. Thank you.

Regards,
Jamison

24 Germinal CCXXVII, Arugula

Jamison Painter <[hidden email]> wrote:

"You must be the change you want to see in the world."

Mahatma Gandhi


On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 9:31 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

[quote]

“But its fallacious use of astronomical quarters as terrestrial “seasons”,…”—Michael Ossipoff

.

Except that the Autumnal Equinox indicates the arrival of Autumn in the Northern Hemisphere. The Winter Solstice indicates the arrival of Winter. The Spring Equinox indicates the arrival of Spring. The Summer Solstice indicates the arrival of Summer, so...

[/quote]

.

Thanks to Jamison for demonstrating and exemplifying the confusion that I referred to: the confusion of astronomical-quarters with terrestrial-seasons.


There is no confusion about what season it is unless you have no brain. I know that applies to you, but it doesn't to most people.

.

Call astronomical-quarters “seasons”, and presto!: Astronomical quarters are seasons  :D

.

[quote]

Your point, aside from the one on top of your head? 

[/quote]

.

With Jameson, this forum is sounding like an elementary-school schoolyard  :D


My name is spelt with an i, not an e. You have seen it many times. I understand that your pointed head leaves little room for a sizable brain, but please try to get it right. 

.

[quote]

“…and its seasonal details that are false and incorrect for most of the Earth.”—Michael Ossipoff

.

The [seasonal-information of the] French Republican Calendar is valid for most of the Northern Hemisphere.

[/quote]

.

No, it isn’t.

.

Any semblance or pretense of seasonal meaning that the FRC’s seasonal information might have in more northern locations is pretty much absent south of latitude 30 N.


It is certainly valid for that part of the Northern Hemisphere where most of the world's food is grown. For example, it is valid in the United States, in most parts of the farming areas, including Iowa. 

.

(For the area-percentages given below, the Earth is assumed to be perfectly spherical. That assumption is more than accurate enough for these purposes. And of course seasonal matters don’t strictly follow latitude-lines, but latitude is a useful general predictor.)

.

Half of the Northern Hemisphere is south of lat 30 N.

.

In other words, half of the Northern Hemisphere is at latitudes at which the FRC’s seasonal-information is meaningless.

.

What about in the Northern-Hemisphere north of lat 30 N.?   West-coasts at U.S. latitudes  are popular and populous, and typically, at those temperate west-coasts, you’d be laughed off the stage if you spoke of “Snow-Month”.

.

In order for FRC’s seasonal references to be meaningful in even half of the Northern-Hemisphere, it would be necessary for them to be meaningful everywhere north of lat 30 N.  They aren’t.

.

In other words, then, the FRC’s seasonal-references are, at best, meaningful in less than half of the Northern-Hemisphere.


They are meaningful where most of the food is grown, that most of the world eats. 

.

[quote]

That would be about half of the Earth.

[/quote]

.

The region north of lat 30 N, where the FRC’s seasonal-information even might mean something consists of only ¼ of the Earth’s surface-area.


I can accept one-fourth. It is the one-fourth where most of the world's food is grown, and exported to the rest of the world. Go to your local supermarket, and check where the food is grown. It will be in that area that you yourself have pointed out. Not all of the food, but most of it. 

.

In fact, the region north of the tropics consists of only about 30% of the world’s surface-area.

.

What about population?

.

Most of the world’s population resides south of lat 30 N.

.

In fact, half of the world’s population resides south of lat 27 N.

.

In other words, for most of the world’s population, FRC’s seasonal information is meaningless for where they live.


The population is irrelevant. What is relevant is where the food is grown. 

.

[quote]

And it is the half where about 80% of the world's food is grown.

[/quote]

.

Curiously, Jameson earlier said that his “80%” figure was a guess, and might be wrong. But now he’s using it as established fact, and repeating it throughout the message that I’m replying to. 

.

A quick search didn’t find information about that. Jameson wouldn’t make I up, would he?


I agree that it is a guess. I thought you might be intelligent enough to realise that. Now that I know the depth of your idiocy, I shall try harder. 

.

One thing that I found in that quick search was a list of crop-acreage in various countries. It sums roughly the same, north and south of lat 30 N.

.

FRC a useful “farmer’s almanac”?  Farmers everywhere need and already have more accurate regional seasonal information than the FRC.


Its good for a quick look. That is all it was intended to be, although if you look at the northern hemisphere, when the calendar suggests that a food should be in season (ie, when that food's day comes up), it generally is. Ialso thought you were capable of figuring that out. Again, I assumed too far that you might have a brain that works. 

.

[quote]

So much for your multiple statements of "invalid for most of the Earth".

[/quote]

.

See above.


See above. 

.

[quote]

“But my point was that any calendar, including South-Solstice WeekDate, or 12X30 with 10-day weeks and blank-days, can have, added to it, all sorts of seasonal information and details…but hopefully with local accuracy.

.

For example, any publisher, purchaser or at-home constructor of a South-Solstice WeekDate wall-calendar could add to it any meaningful and accurate seasonal information that they want to add.”—Michael Ossipoff

.

This much is probably true. That could be done for the FRC as well

[/quote]

Exactly, and so there’s no need to want to coercively impose, on most of the world’s people, a seasons-description that is meaningless and irrelevant to them.


It is relevant in terms of living in Berundi, and knowing when the grapes that you eat are going to be in season and exported to your impoverished country that cannot feed itself, which is why Empire was a far better thing than people give it credit for. 

.

[quote]

 …although it would be entirely unnecessary for most of the Northern Hemisphere.

[/quote]

.

Incorrect. As I explained above, FRC’s terrestrial-seasonal information would be relevant in less than half of the Northern Hemisphere.

.

…and on only about ¼ of the Earth’s surface.  


The one-fourth where most of the world's food is grown. Again, I can accept 25%. It is the only 25% that matters. 

.

…and to fewer than half of the world’s people.


So what? What those people eat should be important to them, and therefore, they would want a calendar that accurately reports what will be in season when. 

.

[quote]

Now, the FRC's seasons are related directly to the Il-de-France region, and to a lesser degree [less than half of] the Northern Hemisphere. Nevertheless, a calendar whose months are named after seasons or activities done in them is inherently more seasonal than a calendar that is mostly numbers and letters…

[/quote]

No, not really.  Not when its months are named for seasons and activities that are inapplicable to the time when those months occur over ¾ of the Earth’s surface, and to most of the world’s people.

Again, 75% relies on 25% for food to live, which is probably why 75% should be colonised. But that is not the case and never will be, so let's move on. Most of the world's people need to know when the food they eat will be in the market. The FRC does a very good job of indicating that. 

.

[quote]

, even if it [South-Solstice WeekDate] "provid(es) a good indication of the Solar ecliptic-longitude".

[/quote]

.

…provides that without all of that inaccurate terrestrial seasonal information.   …terrestrial-seasonal information that’s meaningless and irrelevant over ¾ of the Earth’s surface, and to most of the world’s people.

.

…and with better calendrical convenience, simplicity, un-arbitrarieness and minimal-ness than that of FRC or other months-calendars.

.

You know, it’s possible to pay respects to the French Republic, and borrow what was good about FRC, without pretending that its seasons are applicable everywhere.   …or copying its months-structure.

.

…because its months-structure wasn’t the stand-out or necessary aspect of FRC (and is just one of a big arbitrary array of months-proposals, and, for various reasons, arguably isn’t desirable). 

.

FRC’s genuine contribution, innovation and value was its nature-seasonal character. That can (only) be achieved locally or regionally, and voluntarily, as I described in the passage that you quoted above.

.

[quote]

And good luck creating a calendar that is equally nature-oriented

[/quote]

.

The same kinds of nature-seasonal information could be added to any calendrical-structure, for any region.

.

 [quote]

“Yes, FRC was tried and rejected. That hardly enhances its status.”—Michael Ossipoff

.

It was tried in the late 18th and early 19th Century by one country.

[/quote]

.

…and rejected.

.

[quote]

It could be adopted more widely.

[/quote]

.

…and pigs could fly.

.

Yes, the mistake could be repeated.  …but won’t be.

[/quote]

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

FRC was rejected, at least in large part, due to its Sabbath problems  (resulting from 10-day week and blank-days).


Everything Mikey wrote between my last text in this email and this one is entirely irrelevant, and did not require commenting on, but this does. The point, as I have stated multiple times, is the break the calendar from its religious associations. The FRC does this quite nicely. 

.

Later, through some remarkable coincidence, Eastman’s International Fixed Calendar and Achellis’ World Calendar were rejected, with that same reason as the main reason expressed. (…caused by blank-days)

.

Go figure!

.

What does it take to learn a lesson?


Just because a calendar was rejected, doesn't mean it should have been. Therefore, you have to go back to it. It really is that simple. Just because you can't learn, don't assume that the rest of the planet can't. Grow up. As I said in my last post to you, try harder. You STILL aren't succeeding at winning a basic argument.

.

Michael Ossipoff

.

16 Sa

1430 UTC


Jamison
24 Germinal CCXXVII, Arugula 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making someone look foolish.

Jamison Painter
In reply to this post by Jamison Painter
PAULA:

And you seem to me to be a real Doll. I like you. I don't require Michael to agree with me. I could care less if he agrees with me. I DO, however, expect him to be civil. If he changes his tone with me, I am willing to start over with him. I've got no problem with that. I get along fine with everyone else in this group, especially you, and people like you. So, its up to him at this point. I've made the offer. Thank you for your kindness, Sweetheart.

Regards,
Jamison

Paula Spart <[hidden email]> wrote:
You seem to be a nice guy, Jamison. We can agree to disagree in this group. He doesn't have to agree with you, but we all need to respect each other. I've been thinking of starting a calendar group on Facebook and would love to have all of you in it. But I'm in about as many groups as Facebook would allow me to be in.

I admin quite a few groups. I welcome Michael's ideas, but I require people to respect each other in my groups. 

I think all of our calendars are interesting and many of them have their advantages.

Please don't get discouraged, Jamison.

Paula

24 Germinal CCXXVII, Arugula
The Saturday that went too fast for me.

On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 3:45 PM Jamison Painter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Again, I apologise to the group for my harsh tone in the past post. But Michael O insists on attempting (not very successfully, but attempting nonetheless) to make me look foolish. That is a bad idea, as it makes me cranky. I CAN, and shall, make him look and possibly feel about 3 mm tall. Don't blame me for someone else's stupidity. I only give what I get. I am capable of playing nasty hardball when pushed. Thank you.

Regards,
Jamison

24 Germinal CCXXVII, Arugula

Jamison Painter <[hidden email]> wrote:

"You must be the change you want to see in the world."

Mahatma Gandhi


On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 9:31 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

[quote]

“But its fallacious use of astronomical quarters as terrestrial “seasons”,…”—Michael Ossipoff

.

Except that the Autumnal Equinox indicates the arrival of Autumn in the Northern Hemisphere. The Winter Solstice indicates the arrival of Winter. The Spring Equinox indicates the arrival of Spring. The Summer Solstice indicates the arrival of Summer, so...

[/quote]

.

Thanks to Jamison for demonstrating and exemplifying the confusion that I referred to: the confusion of astronomical-quarters with terrestrial-seasons.


There is no confusion about what season it is unless you have no brain. I know that applies to you, but it doesn't to most people.

.

Call astronomical-quarters “seasons”, and presto!: Astronomical quarters are seasons  :D

.

[quote]

Your point, aside from the one on top of your head? 

[/quote]

.

With Jameson, this forum is sounding like an elementary-school schoolyard  :D


My name is spelt with an i, not an e. You have seen it many times. I understand that your pointed head leaves little room for a sizable brain, but please try to get it right. 

.

[quote]

“…and its seasonal details that are false and incorrect for most of the Earth.”—Michael Ossipoff

.

The [seasonal-information of the] French Republican Calendar is valid for most of the Northern Hemisphere.

[/quote]

.

No, it isn’t.

.

Any semblance or pretense of seasonal meaning that the FRC’s seasonal information might have in more northern locations is pretty much absent south of latitude 30 N.


It is certainly valid for that part of the Northern Hemisphere where most of the world's food is grown. For example, it is valid in the United States, in most parts of the farming areas, including Iowa. 

.

(For the area-percentages given below, the Earth is assumed to be perfectly spherical. That assumption is more than accurate enough for these purposes. And of course seasonal matters don’t strictly follow latitude-lines, but latitude is a useful general predictor.)

.

Half of the Northern Hemisphere is south of lat 30 N.

.

In other words, half of the Northern Hemisphere is at latitudes at which the FRC’s seasonal-information is meaningless.

.

What about in the Northern-Hemisphere north of lat 30 N.?   West-coasts at U.S. latitudes  are popular and populous, and typically, at those temperate west-coasts, you’d be laughed off the stage if you spoke of “Snow-Month”.

.

In order for FRC’s seasonal references to be meaningful in even half of the Northern-Hemisphere, it would be necessary for them to be meaningful everywhere north of lat 30 N.  They aren’t.

.

In other words, then, the FRC’s seasonal-references are, at best, meaningful in less than half of the Northern-Hemisphere.


They are meaningful where most of the food is grown, that most of the world eats. 

.

[quote]

That would be about half of the Earth.

[/quote]

.

The region north of lat 30 N, where the FRC’s seasonal-information even might mean something consists of only ¼ of the Earth’s surface-area.


I can accept one-fourth. It is the one-fourth where most of the world's food is grown, and exported to the rest of the world. Go to your local supermarket, and check where the food is grown. It will be in that area that you yourself have pointed out. Not all of the food, but most of it. 

.

In fact, the region north of the tropics consists of only about 30% of the world’s surface-area.

.

What about population?

.

Most of the world’s population resides south of lat 30 N.

.

In fact, half of the world’s population resides south of lat 27 N.

.

In other words, for most of the world’s population, FRC’s seasonal information is meaningless for where they live.


The population is irrelevant. What is relevant is where the food is grown. 

.

[quote]

And it is the half where about 80% of the world's food is grown.

[/quote]

.

Curiously, Jameson earlier said that his “80%” figure was a guess, and might be wrong. But now he’s using it as established fact, and repeating it throughout the message that I’m replying to. 

.

A quick search didn’t find information about that. Jameson wouldn’t make I up, would he?


I agree that it is a guess. I thought you might be intelligent enough to realise that. Now that I know the depth of your idiocy, I shall try harder. 

.

One thing that I found in that quick search was a list of crop-acreage in various countries. It sums roughly the same, north and south of lat 30 N.

.

FRC a useful “farmer’s almanac”?  Farmers everywhere need and already have more accurate regional seasonal information than the FRC.


Its good for a quick look. That is all it was intended to be, although if you look at the northern hemisphere, when the calendar suggests that a food should be in season (ie, when that food's day comes up), it generally is. Ialso thought you were capable of figuring that out. Again, I assumed too far that you might have a brain that works. 

.

[quote]

So much for your multiple statements of "invalid for most of the Earth".

[/quote]

.

See above.


See above. 

.

[quote]

“But my point was that any calendar, including South-Solstice WeekDate, or 12X30 with 10-day weeks and blank-days, can have, added to it, all sorts of seasonal information and details…but hopefully with local accuracy.

.

For example, any publisher, purchaser or at-home constructor of a South-Solstice WeekDate wall-calendar could add to it any meaningful and accurate seasonal information that they want to add.”—Michael Ossipoff

.

This much is probably true. That could be done for the FRC as well

[/quote]

Exactly, and so there’s no need to want to coercively impose, on most of the world’s people, a seasons-description that is meaningless and irrelevant to them.


It is relevant in terms of living in Berundi, and knowing when the grapes that you eat are going to be in season and exported to your impoverished country that cannot feed itself, which is why Empire was a far better thing than people give it credit for. 

.

[quote]

 …although it would be entirely unnecessary for most of the Northern Hemisphere.

[/quote]

.

Incorrect. As I explained above, FRC’s terrestrial-seasonal information would be relevant in less than half of the Northern Hemisphere.

.

…and on only about ¼ of the Earth’s surface.  


The one-fourth where most of the world's food is grown. Again, I can accept 25%. It is the only 25% that matters. 

.

…and to fewer than half of the world’s people.


So what? What those people eat should be important to them, and therefore, they would want a calendar that accurately reports what will be in season when. 

.

[quote]

Now, the FRC's seasons are related directly to the Il-de-France region, and to a lesser degree [less than half of] the Northern Hemisphere. Nevertheless, a calendar whose months are named after seasons or activities done in them is inherently more seasonal than a calendar that is mostly numbers and letters…

[/quote]

No, not really.  Not when its months are named for seasons and activities that are inapplicable to the time when those months occur over ¾ of the Earth’s surface, and to most of the world’s people.

Again, 75% relies on 25% for food to live, which is probably why 75% should be colonised. But that is not the case and never will be, so let's move on. Most of the world's people need to know when the food they eat will be in the market. The FRC does a very good job of indicating that. 

.

[quote]

, even if it [South-Solstice WeekDate] "provid(es) a good indication of the Solar ecliptic-longitude".

[/quote]

.

…provides that without all of that inaccurate terrestrial seasonal information.   …terrestrial-seasonal information that’s meaningless and irrelevant over ¾ of the Earth’s surface, and to most of the world’s people.

.

…and with better calendrical convenience, simplicity, un-arbitrarieness and minimal-ness than that of FRC or other months-calendars.

.

You know, it’s possible to pay respects to the French Republic, and borrow what was good about FRC, without pretending that its seasons are applicable everywhere.   …or copying its months-structure.

.

…because its months-structure wasn’t the stand-out or necessary aspect of FRC (and is just one of a big arbitrary array of months-proposals, and, for various reasons, arguably isn’t desirable). 

.

FRC’s genuine contribution, innovation and value was its nature-seasonal character. That can (only) be achieved locally or regionally, and voluntarily, as I described in the passage that you quoted above.

.

[quote]

And good luck creating a calendar that is equally nature-oriented

[/quote]

.

The same kinds of nature-seasonal information could be added to any calendrical-structure, for any region.

.

 [quote]

“Yes, FRC was tried and rejected. That hardly enhances its status.”—Michael Ossipoff

.

It was tried in the late 18th and early 19th Century by one country.

[/quote]

.

…and rejected.

.

[quote]

It could be adopted more widely.

[/quote]

.

…and pigs could fly.

.

Yes, the mistake could be repeated.  …but won’t be.

[/quote]

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

FRC was rejected, at least in large part, due to its Sabbath problems  (resulting from 10-day week and blank-days).


Everything Mikey wrote between my last text in this email and this one is entirely irrelevant, and did not require commenting on, but this does. The point, as I have stated multiple times, is the break the calendar from its religious associations. The FRC does this quite nicely. 

.

Later, through some remarkable coincidence, Eastman’s International Fixed Calendar and Achellis’ World Calendar were rejected, with that same reason as the main reason expressed. (…caused by blank-days)

.

Go figure!

.

What does it take to learn a lesson?


Just because a calendar was rejected, doesn't mean it should have been. Therefore, you have to go back to it. It really is that simple. Just because you can't learn, don't assume that the rest of the planet can't. Grow up. As I said in my last post to you, try harder. You STILL aren't succeeding at winning a basic argument.

.

Michael Ossipoff

.

16 Sa

1430 UTC


Jamison
24 Germinal CCXXVII, Arugula 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making someone look foolish.

sparkielee
In reply to this post by Jamison Painter
It's up to him how he wants to treat people; it's no reflection on you. I've been bullied in school and put down by my own family, but it's their decision to treat me like that. I think I deserved more respect than that but I can't force them to act the way I want them to. I just have to decide what to do with it. 

All of you have some good and interesting ideas about calendars. No one should have to be belittled because another member thinks someone's calendar is strange or a bad idea.

I'm an amateur and some people have been in this group longer than I. I started to make my new calendar last night. I don't know if it will be the next calendar to be on everyone wall-or just a complete flop.

If anyone in the group tries to throw rotten tomatoes at me for it-they wouldn't fly past their phones or computer screens. They'd have to look at and smell the mess they made-not me. And they have to clean up the mess too while I clean up my own apartment and work on my calendar or a new one.

Paula
24 Germinal CCXXVII, Arugula


On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 3:45 PM Jamison Painter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Again, I apologise to the group for my harsh tone in the past post. But Michael O insists on attempting (not very successfully, but attempting nonetheless) to make me look foolish. That is a bad idea, as it makes me cranky. I CAN, and shall, make him look and possibly feel about 3 mm tall. Don't blame me for someone else's stupidity. I only give what I get. I am capable of playing nasty hardball when pushed. Thank you.

Regards,
Jamison

24 Germinal CCXXVII, Arugula

Jamison Painter <[hidden email]> wrote:

"You must be the change you want to see in the world."

Mahatma Gandhi


On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 9:31 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

[quote]

“But its fallacious use of astronomical quarters as terrestrial “seasons”,…”—Michael Ossipoff

.

Except that the Autumnal Equinox indicates the arrival of Autumn in the Northern Hemisphere. The Winter Solstice indicates the arrival of Winter. The Spring Equinox indicates the arrival of Spring. The Summer Solstice indicates the arrival of Summer, so...

[/quote]

.

Thanks to Jamison for demonstrating and exemplifying the confusion that I referred to: the confusion of astronomical-quarters with terrestrial-seasons.


There is no confusion about what season it is unless you have no brain. I know that applies to you, but it doesn't to most people.

.

Call astronomical-quarters “seasons”, and presto!: Astronomical quarters are seasons  :D

.

[quote]

Your point, aside from the one on top of your head? 

[/quote]

.

With Jameson, this forum is sounding like an elementary-school schoolyard  :D


My name is spelt with an i, not an e. You have seen it many times. I understand that your pointed head leaves little room for a sizable brain, but please try to get it right. 

.

[quote]

“…and its seasonal details that are false and incorrect for most of the Earth.”—Michael Ossipoff

.

The [seasonal-information of the] French Republican Calendar is valid for most of the Northern Hemisphere.

[/quote]

.

No, it isn’t.

.

Any semblance or pretense of seasonal meaning that the FRC’s seasonal information might have in more northern locations is pretty much absent south of latitude 30 N.


It is certainly valid for that part of the Northern Hemisphere where most of the world's food is grown. For example, it is valid in the United States, in most parts of the farming areas, including Iowa. 

.

(For the area-percentages given below, the Earth is assumed to be perfectly spherical. That assumption is more than accurate enough for these purposes. And of course seasonal matters don’t strictly follow latitude-lines, but latitude is a useful general predictor.)

.

Half of the Northern Hemisphere is south of lat 30 N.

.

In other words, half of the Northern Hemisphere is at latitudes at which the FRC’s seasonal-information is meaningless.

.

What about in the Northern-Hemisphere north of lat 30 N.?   West-coasts at U.S. latitudes  are popular and populous, and typically, at those temperate west-coasts, you’d be laughed off the stage if you spoke of “Snow-Month”.

.

In order for FRC’s seasonal references to be meaningful in even half of the Northern-Hemisphere, it would be necessary for them to be meaningful everywhere north of lat 30 N.  They aren’t.

.

In other words, then, the FRC’s seasonal-references are, at best, meaningful in less than half of the Northern-Hemisphere.


They are meaningful where most of the food is grown, that most of the world eats. 

.

[quote]

That would be about half of the Earth.

[/quote]

.

The region north of lat 30 N, where the FRC’s seasonal-information even might mean something consists of only ¼ of the Earth’s surface-area.


I can accept one-fourth. It is the one-fourth where most of the world's food is grown, and exported to the rest of the world. Go to your local supermarket, and check where the food is grown. It will be in that area that you yourself have pointed out. Not all of the food, but most of it. 

.

In fact, the region north of the tropics consists of only about 30% of the world’s surface-area.

.

What about population?

.

Most of the world’s population resides south of lat 30 N.

.

In fact, half of the world’s population resides south of lat 27 N.

.

In other words, for most of the world’s population, FRC’s seasonal information is meaningless for where they live.


The population is irrelevant. What is relevant is where the food is grown. 

.

[quote]

And it is the half where about 80% of the world's food is grown.

[/quote]

.

Curiously, Jameson earlier said that his “80%” figure was a guess, and might be wrong. But now he’s using it as established fact, and repeating it throughout the message that I’m replying to. 

.

A quick search didn’t find information about that. Jameson wouldn’t make I up, would he?


I agree that it is a guess. I thought you might be intelligent enough to realise that. Now that I know the depth of your idiocy, I shall try harder. 

.

One thing that I found in that quick search was a list of crop-acreage in various countries. It sums roughly the same, north and south of lat 30 N.

.

FRC a useful “farmer’s almanac”?  Farmers everywhere need and already have more accurate regional seasonal information than the FRC.


Its good for a quick look. That is all it was intended to be, although if you look at the northern hemisphere, when the calendar suggests that a food should be in season (ie, when that food's day comes up), it generally is. Ialso thought you were capable of figuring that out. Again, I assumed too far that you might have a brain that works. 

.

[quote]

So much for your multiple statements of "invalid for most of the Earth".

[/quote]

.

See above.


See above. 

.

[quote]

“But my point was that any calendar, including South-Solstice WeekDate, or 12X30 with 10-day weeks and blank-days, can have, added to it, all sorts of seasonal information and details…but hopefully with local accuracy.

.

For example, any publisher, purchaser or at-home constructor of a South-Solstice WeekDate wall-calendar could add to it any meaningful and accurate seasonal information that they want to add.”—Michael Ossipoff

.

This much is probably true. That could be done for the FRC as well

[/quote]

Exactly, and so there’s no need to want to coercively impose, on most of the world’s people, a seasons-description that is meaningless and irrelevant to them.


It is relevant in terms of living in Berundi, and knowing when the grapes that you eat are going to be in season and exported to your impoverished country that cannot feed itself, which is why Empire was a far better thing than people give it credit for. 

.

[quote]

 …although it would be entirely unnecessary for most of the Northern Hemisphere.

[/quote]

.

Incorrect. As I explained above, FRC’s terrestrial-seasonal information would be relevant in less than half of the Northern Hemisphere.

.

…and on only about ¼ of the Earth’s surface.  


The one-fourth where most of the world's food is grown. Again, I can accept 25%. It is the only 25% that matters. 

.

…and to fewer than half of the world’s people.


So what? What those people eat should be important to them, and therefore, they would want a calendar that accurately reports what will be in season when. 

.

[quote]

Now, the FRC's seasons are related directly to the Il-de-France region, and to a lesser degree [less than half of] the Northern Hemisphere. Nevertheless, a calendar whose months are named after seasons or activities done in them is inherently more seasonal than a calendar that is mostly numbers and letters…

[/quote]

No, not really.  Not when its months are named for seasons and activities that are inapplicable to the time when those months occur over ¾ of the Earth’s surface, and to most of the world’s people.

Again, 75% relies on 25% for food to live, which is probably why 75% should be colonised. But that is not the case and never will be, so let's move on. Most of the world's people need to know when the food they eat will be in the market. The FRC does a very good job of indicating that. 

.

[quote]

, even if it [South-Solstice WeekDate] "provid(es) a good indication of the Solar ecliptic-longitude".

[/quote]

.

…provides that without all of that inaccurate terrestrial seasonal information.   …terrestrial-seasonal information that’s meaningless and irrelevant over ¾ of the Earth’s surface, and to most of the world’s people.

.

…and with better calendrical convenience, simplicity, un-arbitrarieness and minimal-ness than that of FRC or other months-calendars.

.

You know, it’s possible to pay respects to the French Republic, and borrow what was good about FRC, without pretending that its seasons are applicable everywhere.   …or copying its months-structure.

.

…because its months-structure wasn’t the stand-out or necessary aspect of FRC (and is just one of a big arbitrary array of months-proposals, and, for various reasons, arguably isn’t desirable). 

.

FRC’s genuine contribution, innovation and value was its nature-seasonal character. That can (only) be achieved locally or regionally, and voluntarily, as I described in the passage that you quoted above.

.

[quote]

And good luck creating a calendar that is equally nature-oriented

[/quote]

.

The same kinds of nature-seasonal information could be added to any calendrical-structure, for any region.

.

 [quote]

“Yes, FRC was tried and rejected. That hardly enhances its status.”—Michael Ossipoff

.

It was tried in the late 18th and early 19th Century by one country.

[/quote]

.

…and rejected.

.

[quote]

It could be adopted more widely.

[/quote]

.

…and pigs could fly.

.

Yes, the mistake could be repeated.  …but won’t be.

[/quote]

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

FRC was rejected, at least in large part, due to its Sabbath problems  (resulting from 10-day week and blank-days).


Everything Mikey wrote between my last text in this email and this one is entirely irrelevant, and did not require commenting on, but this does. The point, as I have stated multiple times, is the break the calendar from its religious associations. The FRC does this quite nicely. 

.

Later, through some remarkable coincidence, Eastman’s International Fixed Calendar and Achellis’ World Calendar were rejected, with that same reason as the main reason expressed. (…caused by blank-days)

.

Go figure!

.

What does it take to learn a lesson?


Just because a calendar was rejected, doesn't mean it should have been. Therefore, you have to go back to it. It really is that simple. Just because you can't learn, don't assume that the rest of the planet can't. Grow up. As I said in my last post to you, try harder. You STILL aren't succeeding at winning a basic argument.

.

Michael Ossipoff

.

16 Sa

1430 UTC


Jamison
24 Germinal CCXXVII, Arugula 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making someone look foolish.

Jamison Painter
In reply to this post by Jamison Painter
PAULA:

I repeat: You are very sweet, and I appreciate it. Thank you.

Paula Spart <[hidden email]> wrote:
It's up to him how he wants to treat people; it's no reflection on you. I've been bullied in school and put down by my own family, but it's their decision to treat me like that. I think I deserved more respect than that but I can't force them to act the way I want them to. I just have to decide what to do with it. 

All of you have some good and interesting ideas about calendars. No one should have to be belittled because another member thinks someone's calendar is strange or a bad idea.

I'm an amateur and some people have been in this group longer than I. I started to make my new calendar last night. I don't know if it will be the next calendar to be on everyone wall-or just a complete flop.

If anyone in the group tries to throw rotten tomatoes at me for it-they wouldn't fly past their phones or computer screens. They'd have to look at and smell the mess they made-not me. And they have to clean up the mess too while I clean up my own apartment and work on my calendar or a new one.

Paula
24 Germinal CCXXVII, Arugula


On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 3:45 PM Jamison Painter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Again, I apologise to the group for my harsh tone in the past post. But Michael O insists on attempting (not very successfully, but attempting nonetheless) to make me look foolish. That is a bad idea, as it makes me cranky. I CAN, and shall, make him look and possibly feel about 3 mm tall. Don't blame me for someone else's stupidity. I only give what I get. I am capable of playing nasty hardball when pushed. Thank you.

Regards,
Jamison

24 Germinal CCXXVII, Arugula

Jamison Painter <[hidden email]> wrote:

"You must be the change you want to see in the world."

Mahatma Gandhi


On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 9:31 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

[quote]

“But its fallacious use of astronomical quarters as terrestrial “seasons”,…”—Michael Ossipoff

.

Except that the Autumnal Equinox indicates the arrival of Autumn in the Northern Hemisphere. The Winter Solstice indicates the arrival of Winter. The Spring Equinox indicates the arrival of Spring. The Summer Solstice indicates the arrival of Summer, so...

[/quote]

.

Thanks to Jamison for demonstrating and exemplifying the confusion that I referred to: the confusion of astronomical-quarters with terrestrial-seasons.


There is no confusion about what season it is unless you have no brain. I know that applies to you, but it doesn't to most people.

.

Call astronomical-quarters “seasons”, and presto!: Astronomical quarters are seasons  :D

.

[quote]

Your point, aside from the one on top of your head? 

[/quote]

.

With Jameson, this forum is sounding like an elementary-school schoolyard  :D


My name is spelt with an i, not an e. You have seen it many times. I understand that your pointed head leaves little room for a sizable brain, but please try to get it right. 

.

[quote]

“…and its seasonal details that are false and incorrect for most of the Earth.”—Michael Ossipoff

.

The [seasonal-information of the] French Republican Calendar is valid for most of the Northern Hemisphere.

[/quote]

.

No, it isn’t.

.

Any semblance or pretense of seasonal meaning that the FRC’s seasonal information might have in more northern locations is pretty much absent south of latitude 30 N.


It is certainly valid for that part of the Northern Hemisphere where most of the world's food is grown. For example, it is valid in the United States, in most parts of the farming areas, including Iowa. 

.

(For the area-percentages given below, the Earth is assumed to be perfectly spherical. That assumption is more than accurate enough for these purposes. And of course seasonal matters don’t strictly follow latitude-lines, but latitude is a useful general predictor.)

.

Half of the Northern Hemisphere is south of lat 30 N.

.

In other words, half of the Northern Hemisphere is at latitudes at which the FRC’s seasonal-information is meaningless.

.

What about in the Northern-Hemisphere north of lat 30 N.?   West-coasts at U.S. latitudes  are popular and populous, and typically, at those temperate west-coasts, you’d be laughed off the stage if you spoke of “Snow-Month”.

.

In order for FRC’s seasonal references to be meaningful in even half of the Northern-Hemisphere, it would be necessary for them to be meaningful everywhere north of lat 30 N.  They aren’t.

.

In other words, then, the FRC’s seasonal-references are, at best, meaningful in less than half of the Northern-Hemisphere.


They are meaningful where most of the food is grown, that most of the world eats. 

.

[quote]

That would be about half of the Earth.

[/quote]

.

The region north of lat 30 N, where the FRC’s seasonal-information even might mean something consists of only ¼ of the Earth’s surface-area.


I can accept one-fourth. It is the one-fourth where most of the world's food is grown, and exported to the rest of the world. Go to your local supermarket, and check where the food is grown. It will be in that area that you yourself have pointed out. Not all of the food, but most of it. 

.

In fact, the region north of the tropics consists of only about 30% of the world’s surface-area.

.

What about population?

.

Most of the world’s population resides south of lat 30 N.

.

In fact, half of the world’s population resides south of lat 27 N.

.

In other words, for most of the world’s population, FRC’s seasonal information is meaningless for where they live.


The population is irrelevant. What is relevant is where the food is grown. 

.

[quote]

And it is the half where about 80% of the world's food is grown.

[/quote]

.

Curiously, Jameson earlier said that his “80%” figure was a guess, and might be wrong. But now he’s using it as established fact, and repeating it throughout the message that I’m replying to. 

.

A quick search didn’t find information about that. Jameson wouldn’t make I up, would he?


I agree that it is a guess. I thought you might be intelligent enough to realise that. Now that I know the depth of your idiocy, I shall try harder. 

.

One thing that I found in that quick search was a list of crop-acreage in various countries. It sums roughly the same, north and south of lat 30 N.

.

FRC a useful “farmer’s almanac”?  Farmers everywhere need and already have more accurate regional seasonal information than the FRC.


Its good for a quick look. That is all it was intended to be, although if you look at the northern hemisphere, when the calendar suggests that a food should be in season (ie, when that food's day comes up), it generally is. Ialso thought you were capable of figuring that out. Again, I assumed too far that you might have a brain that works. 

.

[quote]

So much for your multiple statements of "invalid for most of the Earth".

[/quote]

.

See above.


See above. 

.

[quote]

“But my point was that any calendar, including South-Solstice WeekDate, or 12X30 with 10-day weeks and blank-days, can have, added to it, all sorts of seasonal information and details…but hopefully with local accuracy.

.

For example, any publisher, purchaser or at-home constructor of a South-Solstice WeekDate wall-calendar could add to it any meaningful and accurate seasonal information that they want to add.”—Michael Ossipoff

.

This much is probably true. That could be done for the FRC as well

[/quote]

Exactly, and so there’s no need to want to coercively impose, on most of the world’s people, a seasons-description that is meaningless and irrelevant to them.


It is relevant in terms of living in Berundi, and knowing when the grapes that you eat are going to be in season and exported to your impoverished country that cannot feed itself, which is why Empire was a far better thing than people give it credit for. 

.

[quote]

 …although it would be entirely unnecessary for most of the Northern Hemisphere.

[/quote]

.

Incorrect. As I explained above, FRC’s terrestrial-seasonal information would be relevant in less than half of the Northern Hemisphere.

.

…and on only about ¼ of the Earth’s surface.  


The one-fourth where most of the world's food is grown. Again, I can accept 25%. It is the only 25% that matters. 

.

…and to fewer than half of the world’s people.


So what? What those people eat should be important to them, and therefore, they would want a calendar that accurately reports what will be in season when. 

.

[quote]

Now, the FRC's seasons are related directly to the Il-de-France region, and to a lesser degree [less than half of] the Northern Hemisphere. Nevertheless, a calendar whose months are named after seasons or activities done in them is inherently more seasonal than a calendar that is mostly numbers and letters…

[/quote]

No, not really.  Not when its months are named for seasons and activities that are inapplicable to the time when those months occur over ¾ of the Earth’s surface, and to most of the world’s people.

Again, 75% relies on 25% for food to live, which is probably why 75% should be colonised. But that is not the case and never will be, so let's move on. Most of the world's people need to know when the food they eat will be in the market. The FRC does a very good job of indicating that. 

.

[quote]

, even if it [South-Solstice WeekDate] "provid(es) a good indication of the Solar ecliptic-longitude".

[/quote]

.

…provides that without all of that inaccurate terrestrial seasonal information.   …terrestrial-seasonal information that’s meaningless and irrelevant over ¾ of the Earth’s surface, and to most of the world’s people.

.

…and with better calendrical convenience, simplicity, un-arbitrarieness and minimal-ness than that of FRC or other months-calendars.

.

You know, it’s possible to pay respects to the French Republic, and borrow what was good about FRC, without pretending that its seasons are applicable everywhere.   …or copying its months-structure.

.

…because its months-structure wasn’t the stand-out or necessary aspect of FRC (and is just one of a big arbitrary array of months-proposals, and, for various reasons, arguably isn’t desirable). 

.

FRC’s genuine contribution, innovation and value was its nature-seasonal character. That can (only) be achieved locally or regionally, and voluntarily, as I described in the passage that you quoted above.

.

[quote]

And good luck creating a calendar that is equally nature-oriented

[/quote]

.

The same kinds of nature-seasonal information could be added to any calendrical-structure, for any region.

.

 [quote]

“Yes, FRC was tried and rejected. That hardly enhances its status.”—Michael Ossipoff

.

It was tried in the late 18th and early 19th Century by one country.

[/quote]

.

…and rejected.

.

[quote]

It could be adopted more widely.

[/quote]

.

…and pigs could fly.

.

Yes, the mistake could be repeated.  …but won’t be.

[/quote]

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

FRC was rejected, at least in large part, due to its Sabbath problems  (resulting from 10-day week and blank-days).


Everything Mikey wrote between my last text in this email and this one is entirely irrelevant, and did not require commenting on, but this does. The point, as I have stated multiple times, is the break the calendar from its religious associations. The FRC does this quite nicely. 

.

Later, through some remarkable coincidence, Eastman’s International Fixed Calendar and Achellis’ World Calendar were rejected, with that same reason as the main reason expressed. (…caused by blank-days)

.

Go figure!

.

What does it take to learn a lesson?


Just because a calendar was rejected, doesn't mean it should have been. Therefore, you have to go back to it. It really is that simple. Just because you can't learn, don't assume that the rest of the planet can't. Grow up. As I said in my last post to you, try harder. You STILL aren't succeeding at winning a basic argument.

.

Michael Ossipoff

.

16 Sa

1430 UTC


Jamison
24 Germinal CCXXVII, Arugula