Michael converses with several people about calendars

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

Michael converses with several people about calendars

Peter Meyer
Michael Ossipoff said:

> I've met people who liked the 28X13 month-system. ... ... the only
> alternative year-division systems that I've gotten an immediate
> accepting reaction for. ... I've even had someone write to me to
> propose it ...
> ...
> from my conversations ...
>
>  I haven't talked to many people about ...

It's true that CALNDR-L is for (intelligent) discussion of calendars,
but does Michael *really* expect us to be interested in reports of his
conversations with other people (not members of CALNDR-L) on this
subject?

What next?  I doubt we've hit bottom yet.

Looking forward to the next episode of this farce,
Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Michael converses with several people about calendars

Christoph Päper-2
Peter Meyer <[hidden email]>:
>
> It's true that CALNDR-L is for (intelligent) discussion of calendars,
> but does Michael *really* expect us to be interested in reports of his
> conversations with other people (not members of CALNDR-L) on this
> subject?

Anecdotal evidence (of popular rejection of certain designs or features) is indeed just that, but I would be very much interested in hard facts: real, empirical findings.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Closing Episode Re: Michael converses with several people about calendars

Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Michael, Peter, Cc sirs:
>Looking forward to the next episode of this >farce.
I like your ‘polite way’ of addressing “enough is enough” and to draw curtain to current episode. My salute to listserv members.
Flt Lt Brij Bhushan VIJ (Retd.), IAF
Tuesday, 2018 November 27H05:29 (decimal)

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 27, 2018, at 03:12, Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Peter Meyer <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> It's true that CALNDR-L is for (intelligent) discussion of calendars,
>> but does Michael *really* expect us to be interested in reports of his
>> conversations with other people (not members of CALNDR-L) on this
>> subject?
>
> Anecdotal evidence (of popular rejection of certain designs or features) is indeed just that, but I would be very much interested in hard facts: real, empirical findings.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Michael converses with several people about calendars

Michael Ossipoff
In reply to this post by Christoph Päper-2

Anecdotal evidence (of popular rejection of certain designs or features) is indeed just that, but I would be very much interested in hard facts: real, empirical findings.

...anecdotal as opposed to...what?  Academic paper reporting detailed scientific statistical studies? 

"Anecdotal" is all we've got.

What's known is that ISO WeekDate is widely-used, as are other WeekDate calendars; and that many people use weekly desk-calendars; and that 39,30,31 with Nearest-Monday year-start has gotten some good media mention relatively recently.

Other than that, our conversations are all we've got.  My experience has been that 28,35,28 is a non-starter. I've had best success with 30,30,31 with Nearest-Monday year-start.

Michael Ossipoff
If there's been a

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:12 AM Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:
Peter Meyer <[hidden email]>:
>
> It's true that CALNDR-L is for (intelligent) discussion of calendars,
> but does Michael *really* expect us to be interested in reports of his
> conversations with other people (not members of CALNDR-L) on this
> subject?

Anecdotal evidence (of popular rejection of certain designs or features) is indeed just that, but I would be very much interested in hard facts: real, empirical findings.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Michael converses with several people about calendars

Michael Ossipoff
Typo:

When I said "39,30,31", I meant "30,30,31".

Michael Ossipoff

6 Frimaire CCXXVII

N. Autumn3 2nd (28&14 Calendar)
or
N. Autum3 Week1-Tuesday (Week-Named 28&14 Calendar)

2018-W48-48-2

November 28th, 2018  (30,30,31 with Nearest-Monday)

Michael Ossipoff






On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:20 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Anecdotal evidence (of popular rejection of certain designs or features) is indeed just that, but I would be very much interested in hard facts: real, empirical findings.

...anecdotal as opposed to...what?  Academic paper reporting detailed scientific statistical studies? 

"Anecdotal" is all we've got.

What's known is that ISO WeekDate is widely-used, as are other WeekDate calendars; and that many people use weekly desk-calendars; and that 39,30,31 with Nearest-Monday year-start has gotten some good media mention relatively recently.

Other than that, our conversations are all we've got.  My experience has been that 28,35,28 is a non-starter. I've had best success with 30,30,31 with Nearest-Monday year-start.

Michael Ossipoff
If there's been a

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:12 AM Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:
Peter Meyer <[hidden email]>:
>
> It's true that CALNDR-L is for (intelligent) discussion of calendars,
> but does Michael *really* expect us to be interested in reports of his
> conversations with other people (not members of CALNDR-L) on this
> subject?

Anecdotal evidence (of popular rejection of certain designs or features) is indeed just that, but I would be very much interested in hard facts: real, empirical findings.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Michael converses with several people about calendars

Michael Ossipoff
Accidentally repeated the "48" when I said:

2018-W48-48-2

I meant 2018-W48-2

MIchael Ossipoff

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:31 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Typo:

When I said "39,30,31", I meant "30,30,31".

Michael Ossipoff

6 Frimaire CCXXVII

N. Autumn3 2nd (28&14 Calendar)
or
N. Autum3 Week1-Tuesday (Week-Named 28&14 Calendar)

2018-W48-48-2

November 28th, 2018  (30,30,31 with Nearest-Monday)

Michael Ossipoff






On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:20 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Anecdotal evidence (of popular rejection of certain designs or features) is indeed just that, but I would be very much interested in hard facts: real, empirical findings.

...anecdotal as opposed to...what?  Academic paper reporting detailed scientific statistical studies? 

"Anecdotal" is all we've got.

What's known is that ISO WeekDate is widely-used, as are other WeekDate calendars; and that many people use weekly desk-calendars; and that 39,30,31 with Nearest-Monday year-start has gotten some good media mention relatively recently.

Other than that, our conversations are all we've got.  My experience has been that 28,35,28 is a non-starter. I've had best success with 30,30,31 with Nearest-Monday year-start.

Michael Ossipoff
If there's been a

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:12 AM Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:
Peter Meyer <[hidden email]>:
>
> It's true that CALNDR-L is for (intelligent) discussion of calendars,
> but does Michael *really* expect us to be interested in reports of his
> conversations with other people (not members of CALNDR-L) on this
> subject?

Anecdotal evidence (of popular rejection of certain designs or features) is indeed just that, but I would be very much interested in hard facts: real, empirical findings.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Michael converses with several people about calendars

Christoph Päper-2
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff
Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]>:
>> (…) I would be very much interested in hard facts:
> real, empirical findings.
>
>...anecdotal as opposed to...what?
> Academic paper reporting detailed
> scientific statistical studies?

Yes, that is what I meant and, honestly, said.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

30,30,31 or 30,30,38 vs. 4,5,4 or 4,5,5 Re: Michael converses with several people about calendars

k.palmen@btinternet.com
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff
Dear Michael and Calendar People

30,30,31 is misleading. It's a con. It is really 30,30,31 or 30,30,38.

Whereas 4,5,4 is really 4,5,4 or 4,5,5.

Karl

Wednesday Epsilon November 2018
----Original message----
From : [hidden email]
Date : 27/11/2018 - 15:20 (GMT)
To : [hidden email]
Subject : Re: Michael converses with several people about calendars


Anecdotal evidence (of popular rejection of certain designs or features) is indeed just that, but I would be very much interested in hard facts: real, empirical findings.

...anecdotal as opposed to...what?  Academic paper reporting detailed scientific statistical studies? 

"Anecdotal" is all we've got.

What's known is that ISO WeekDate is widely-used, as are other WeekDate calendars; and that many people use weekly desk-calendars; and that 39,30,31 with Nearest-Monday year-start has gotten some good media mention relatively recently.

Other than that, our conversations are all we've got.  My experience has been that 28,35,28 is a non-starter. I've had best success with 30,30,31 with Nearest-Monday year-start.

Michael Ossipoff
If there's been a

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:12 AM Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:
Peter Meyer <[hidden email]>:
>
> It's true that CALNDR-L is for (intelligent) discussion of calendars,
> but does Michael *really* expect us to be interested in reports of his
> conversations with other people (not members of CALNDR-L) on this
> subject?

Anecdotal evidence (of popular rejection of certain designs or features) is indeed just that, but I would be very much interested in hard facts: real, empirical findings.