The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: jimp on 23 Feb 2010 15:55 Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:05:52 -0000, jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com > wrote: > >>In sci.physics Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Peter Moylan wrote: >>>> Andrew Usher wrote: >>>> >>>> > I chose the Christian holidays because they are international, >>>> >>>> ??? >>> >>> They're more so than any other holidays, are they not? >>> >>> Andrew Usher >> >>Nope, New Years is celebrated by almost all countries and cultures. > > But not always on January first. > Yeah, so what? Christmas isn't celebrated on December 25 by everybody either. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: jimp on 23 Feb 2010 15:56 António Marques <antonioprm(a)sapo.pt> wrote: > jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote (23-02-2010 15:44): >> In sci.physics Andrew Usher<k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: >>> >>>>>>> I chose the Christian holidays because they are international, >>>>>> >>>>>> ??? >>>>> >>>>> They're more so than any other holidays, are they not? >>>> >>>> I suspect that you could find people celebrating Pesach, Purim, Rosh >>>> Hashanah, and Yom Kippur in as many countries as any four Christian >>>> holidays. >>> >>> Well, yes, but not _more people_. >>> >>> Andrew Usher >> >> With roughly 1.3 billion Chinese alone, New Years is celebrated by a LOT >> more people. > > Don't they celebrate it on a different date? Yeah, and a bunch of people celebrate Christmas on a date other than December 25. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 23 Feb 2010 16:42 On Feb 23, 1:48 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:39:35 +0000, Ant nio Marques > <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote in > <news:hm13st$kct$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> in > sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > > > > > > > Brian M. Scott wrote (23-02-2010 16:56): > >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:16:59 +0000, Ant nio Marques > >> <antonio...(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? > > It's not apparent that any particular notion of precise > terminology is relevant to Peter's deliberate > misunderstanding and the subsequent comments thereon. _Now_ what are you accusing me of? > >>> 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? > > You seem to be involved in a different discussion. > > >>> 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? > > You may be discussing an internal point of view; I am not, > and it's not clear to me that others are doing so, either. > > [...] > > >>> 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. > > Not comparable. 'Catholic but not Roman Catholic' actually > does identify the churches in question. There is, for instance, a Ukrainian Catholic Church, with a cathedral in Pittsburgh, and its observances (as at its large church in Chicago) borrow a great deal from Orthodox practice.
From: Adam Funk on 23 Feb 2010 16:30 On 2010-02-23, António Marques wrote: >>>>> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. >>>>> ANYWHERE. As I said earlier, it's what the churches print on their own signs in the UK and (I think) in much of the USA. > I disagree. If anything, 'Catholic but not Roman Catholic' might more easily > refer to the old catholics or polish national catholics. I certainly agree with you on that. -- In the 1970s, people began receiving utility bills for -£999,999,996.32 and it became harder to sustain the myth of the infallible electronic brain. (Stob 2001)
From: Peter T. Daniels on 23 Feb 2010 16:48
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). > > I've hear it commented that daylight time was invented by an > Amrican Indian who, finding his blanket too short to reach his > chin, cut off the lower end of the blanket and sewed it onto the > upper end. > > -- > ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...(a)cox.net) ************* > * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * > * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * And your racial slurs? Is there a reason for attaching that story to a particular ethnicity? Doesn't just about every culture use blankets? |