The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Brian M. Scott on 28 Feb 2010 12:09 On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 06:10:40 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote in <news:e73c065e-de01-492a-b552-02450854e4ad(a)e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > On Feb 28, 2:20�am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:30:37 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote in >> <news:d71436df-5a65-4a7a-9949-8653dd7bf080(a)f35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> >> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>> On Feb 27, 4:58 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:48:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >>>> <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote in >>>> <news:02dc31c7-bbee-4dd6-8c8f-f915da3acdab(a)g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> >>>> in >>>> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>>>> On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>>> Until you offer a definition of "Christian" with an >>>>>> explanation and evidence as to why it's superior to >>>>>> those generally accepted by lexicographers, there's not >>>>>> really much left to discuss.- >>>>> Again I point out, as a linguist, that lexicographers have >>>>> no special handle on truth, especially as concerns >>>>> technical terminology. >>>> But 'Christian' is very far from being exclusively a >>>> technical term. >>> When it concerns Christians' official definitions of what >>> constitutes a Christian, it certainly is. >> It never does. �Individual brands of Christianity can have >> official definitions of what constitutes a Christian, but >> since those definitions don't all agree, the notion that >> Christians in general have an official definition of what >> constitutes a Christian is patently absurd. > Where did I say "Christians in general"? The discussion has been about who qualifies as Christian tout court, not about who qualifies as Christian by the definition of a particular sect. If you weren't talking about something more general than that, your comment was pointless. > Why is there an epidemic of people (all of whom appear to > be mathematically oriented, incidentally) assuming that > unquantified nouns have only universal reference, as > opposed to the normal interpretation that the omitted > quantifier is an existential? That isn't the normal interpretation. And despite my profession, I'm far more verbally than mathematically oriented.
From: Cheryl on 28 Feb 2010 13:04 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > On Feb 28, 1:30 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> Are you suggesting that some (often disinterested) government >> official would have more reliable sources of detail of the birth? > > I'm observing that over here, birth certificates are done in the > hospital (presumably for home etc. births there are equivalent > provisions) and signed by witnesses on the spot, not a week later. > > What about folks who didn't get baptized? Admittedly it's a while since we used the baptismal certificate system as a kind of proxy version of government public statistics, but I think you could use sworn statements from reputable people who knew you and were identifiable about the fact that you were existed and born in X on Y. Mind you, there were holes in the system the way it was practiced here in the old days. Even if you had been baptised if, as happened fairly often, the local church and all the records burned, you could establish a couple different birth dates by various alternate methods, which some people found rather handy. It got harder and harder after years of claiming in writing you were born in one year to receive something that required you to have been born in another year, though. -- Cheryl
From: David Harmon on 28 Feb 2010 14:09 On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:56:25 -0500 in alt.usage.english, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote, >As far as I can tell, the only employers that are closed on >President's Day are government offices, schools, and banks. To the There is no such holiday as "President's Day" to US government offices. http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol/2010.asp
From: Peter T. Daniels on 28 Feb 2010 14:11 On Feb 28, 1:04 pm, Cheryl <cperk...(a)mun.ca> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > On Feb 28, 1:30 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > >> Are you suggesting that some (often disinterested) government > >> official would have more reliable sources of detail of the birth? > > > I'm observing that over here, birth certificates are done in the > > hospital (presumably for home etc. births there are equivalent > > provisions) and signed by witnesses on the spot, not a week later. > > > What about folks who didn't get baptized? > > Admittedly it's a while since we used the baptismal certificate system > as a kind of proxy version of government public statistics, but I think > you could use sworn statements from reputable people who knew you and > were identifiable about the fact that you were existed and born in X on Y.. > > Mind you, there were holes in the system the way it was practiced here > in the old days. Even if you had been baptised if, as happened fairly > often, the local church and all the records burned, you could establish > a couple different birth dates by various alternate methods, which some > people found rather handy. > > It got harder and harder after years of claiming in writing you were > born in one year to receive something that required you to have been > born in another year, though. Actually I was thinking of all those babies who got banished from Limbo by Benny 16. If they're not counted on earth, and they don't count in heaven, what's a heaven for?
From: Skitt on 28 Feb 2010 14:12
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: > "Skitt" writes: >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: >>> "Skitt" wrote: >>>> It made our helpers happy, and no believers were harmed in the >>>> process. Why, I even joined the YMCA, as it was our official >>>> sponsor. The YMCA had great pool tables and a table tennis >>>> facility, so all was not lost. >>> >>> I don't think you have to be Christian (or Young) to use the YMCA >>> ... >> >> Not to use, but there was some sort of commitment that had to be >> expressed to join the Y. > > If so, they changed their policy by the time I started taking swimming > lessons there in the '60s. My family were members, but we wouldn't > have made any statement that expressed an affiliation with > Christianity. I was referring to the 1949-1953 period. Things may have changed since then. Their Web site still mentions: Our Mission: To put Christian principles into practice through programs that build healthy spirit, mind and body for all. [snip] I was also a Ragger (of the blue sort). http://www.phantomlakeymca.com/raggers.html Again, that was top please our sponsor. Besides, when we first came to the USA, we lived in the Upper Lodge of the YMCA Camp near Boulder Creek. Our family was part of the staff there. -- Skitt (AmE) |