The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Hatunen on 23 Feb 2010 12:37 On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:15:06 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: > >> > mine, yours, his, hers, its,ours, theirs. >> > >> > Not one possessive pronoun has an apostrophe. >> >> One should be sure of one's facts before making such assertions. (Or >> should that be "ones"?) > >'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised adjective >(the number one) that is used in place of a pronoun. A propronoun? -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: sjdevnull on 23 Feb 2010 12:39 On Feb 23, 12:27 pm, Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:38:57 +0800, Robert Bannister > > <robb...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > >What I want to know is what do they do with all this daylight they've > >saved? I'm not getting it, and I think they're using my daylight for > >nefarious activities. > > Benjamin Franklin first proposed daylight time (it's not really > called Daylight *Savings* Time anymore). > No he didn't, though that's a common myth. He proposed that Parisians wake up earlier to save candle wax (in a satirical commentary on their nightlife). Either George Vernon Hudson or William Willet deserves the credit or blame.
From: António Marques on 23 Feb 2010 12:39 Brian M. Scott wrote (23-02-2010 16:56): > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:16:59 +0000, António Marques > <antonioprm(a)sapo.pt> wrote in > <news:hm0kgg$548$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> in > sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > >> Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 11:39): > >>> On 2010-02-23, Andrew Usher wrote: > >>>>>> The Catholic Church has stated, I believe more than >>>>>> once (it's linked to somewhere in this thread) that >>>>>> fixing Easter to a particular week would be >>>>>> acceptable. > >>> ("Catholic" is a commonly used but imprecise abbreviation >>> of "Roman Catholic".) > >>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote: > >>>>> "The Catholic Church" (which refers to no specific >>>>> organization) hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for >>>>> nearly half a millennium. > >>>> 'The Catholic Church' or simply 'The Church' refers to >>>> exactly one organisation. It's disingenuous to pretend >>>> otherwise. Also, it's been longer than half a >>>> millennium if one includes the East. > >>> The "Roman Catholic Church", the "Old Catholic Church", >>> and the "Polish National Catholic Church" are >>> independent of each other. > >>> The "Eastern Catholic Churches" are under papal authority >>> but I don't think they describe themselves as "Roman >>> Catholic". > >> Gad, not again! You're trolling, aren't you? > >> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. >> ANYWHERE. > > It and RC are, however, widely used popular designations. Indeed, but what relevance does that have when trying to ascertain what the precise terminology is? >> In the tradition from which the Roman and the Greek >> Churches come, the Church has no splitting qualifiers. > > But this isn't really relevant outside that tradition. But what is the relevance of the outside of that tradition to what the ECC think of themselves? >> From the Church's point of view, there aren't multiple >> churches. > > But from an external point of view there very obviously are. It depends, but what is the relevance of any external point of view to the internal point of view which is being discussed? >> When someone mentions 'catholics', it's not to eastern >> orthodox, old or polish catholics that they are refering >> to. > > I have personally heard counterexamples to this assertion, > though I grant that they are rare. Counterexamples may exist, under special circumstances. >> but it *is* accurate to say that the ECC are 'non-Latin >> CC', even if it's somewhat unwieldy. > > Which in a widely used popular terminology becomes 'Catholic > but not Roman Catholic'. In widely used popular terminologies spiders are insects, Cycadaceae are palms and the moon is made of mozzarella. And the Holy Trinity is composed of God, Jesus and the Virgin Mary. Not that many people outside the ECC even know that they exist, how relevant can a designation for them be that is founded on misunderstanding of its elements and the ways they combine? Should it be encouraged, even?
From: Yusuf B Gursey on 23 Feb 2010 12:52 On Feb 23, 6:39 am, Adam Funk <a24...(a)ducksburg.com> wrote: > On 2010-02-23, Andrew Usher wrote: > > >> > The Catholic Church has stated, I believe more than once (it's linked > >> > to somewhere in this thread) that fixing Easter to a particular week > >> > would be acceptable. > > ("Catholic" is a commonly used but imprecise abbreviation of "Roman > Catholic".) > > > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > >> "The Catholic Church" (which refers to no specific organization) > >> hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for nearly half a millennium. > > > 'The Catholic Church' or simply 'The Church' refers to exactly one > > organisation. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Also, it's been > > longer than half a millennium if one includes the East. > > The "Roman Catholic Church", the "Old Catholic Church", and the > "Polish National Catholic Church" are independent of each other. > > The "Eastern Catholic Churches" are under papal authority but I don't > think they describe themselves as "Roman Catholic". AFAIK that's correct. the Arabic name for the *Roman* Catholic Church literally translates as "the Latin Catholic". "Rumi" Catholics are Greek (or Byzantine) Catholics (under papla authority but using the Greek rite). Latin rite Catholics are a very small minority in the Middle East, though I knew a Palestinian whose father had a high rank in Jerusalem (I think they are mostly centered about there, though found elsewhere in diaspora) > > -- > The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to > chance. [Robert R. Coveyou]
From: J. Clarke on 23 Feb 2010 12:58
On 2/23/2010 11:54 AM, sjdevnull(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Feb 23, 9:36 am, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> On 2/23/2010 8:39 AM, sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >>> On Feb 23, 6:19 am, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >>>> Dunno about the rest of the world, but in the US court-ordered busing >>>> has most kids riding the bus to school anyway >> >>> Court-ordered busing never affected a substantial fraction of US >>> school children (it peaked at below 5%, IIRC) and since 1980 or so has >>> been very limited. Post-2000, it's headed toward extinction. >> >> In what jurisdiction has it been discontinued? > > Most of them. > > See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/11/us/by-court-order-busing-ends-where-it-began.html?pagewanted=1 > "CHARLOTTE, N.C., Sept. 10� The school system that pioneered busing > for desegregation three decades ago was ordered today to halt the > program by a Federal judge who ruled that forced integration was no > longer necessary because all vestiges of intentional discrimination > had disappeared." > http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-52114978.html > "DAYTON, Ohio (AP) _ A federal judge lifted a desegregation order > Monday after the city agreed to spend at least $30 million to improve > public schools, ending more than 25 years of cross-town busing > designed to achieve racial balance in the schools." > http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/views/y/1999/03/delaney.busing.mar18/ > "Court-ordered busing ended in Boston in 1987." > > Feel free to Google more. Well praise de lawd, the courts are finally coming to their senses. So are the kids in those towns now walking to the nearest school again? |