Are we STILL discussing this?
If mention of religion offends you, too bad. Mention of autofellatio offends me, but I'm not griping.
If you THINK that use of AD/BC implies "endorsement of the truth of Christianity", then you're in a fantasy world. It's just a habit. Many retail stores gear up for the Christmas holidays and even derive a substantial fraction of their income from the Xmas season. Does this mean they ENDORSE Christianity? (Hint: they are just being pragmatic.)
There are many calendars in use, throughout the English-speaking world. Even the ANTI-RELIGIOUS Soviet Union continued to use the same numbering system for years as the (Christian) West. Nobody EVER thought that this usage implied any endorsement (or even TOLERANCE) of religion on their part.
This whole thing smacks of an "anti-religious agenda", rather than any sincere effort towards neutrality. When we couldn't agree on British vs. American spelling, we chose this solution:
* Let each article use one consistent style throughout. * If I as an American want to write theater and center, I should NOT do so, if the article already uses theatre and centre. * Above all, nobody should systematically go through articles purging of the "hated style".
Ever hear of live and let live? Sheesh!
Uncle Ed
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Are we STILL discussing this?
If you THINK that use of AD/BC implies "endorsement of the truth of Christianity", then you're in a fantasy world. It's just a habit. Many retail stores gear up for the Christmas holidays and even derive a substantial fraction of their income from the Xmas season. Does this mean they ENDORSE Christianity?
Is there any support in Jewish tradition for the idea of a Chanukah bush? One fine tradition of ancient times was to adopt the timetable of local pagan festivals and gradualy subvert its purpose so that the festivals celebrated the traditions of the new masters. To be effective subverters do not announce their intention. At this rate we can expect that in due time the name "Christmas" will be changed to "Marketing Day".
Even the ANTI-RELIGIOUS Soviet Union continued to use the same numbering system for years as the (Christian) West. Nobody EVER thought that this usage implied any endorsement (or even TOLERANCE) of religion on their part.
They did not just continue it; they adopted it. Before the revolution Russia was still using the Orthodox Julian calendar. The Soviet government brought the country into line with everybody else on this point.
This whole thing smacks of an "anti-religious agenda", rather than any sincere effort towards neutrality.
Not really. Those belonging to non-christian religious traditions are the ones more likely to find offence. The anti-religious are more likely to be content with the present system. That makes for a strange alliance of convenience between atheists and fundamentalist Christians.
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
Is there any support in Jewish tradition for the idea of a Chanukah bush?
No, and there still isn't. I don't get the point you are trying to make.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
Is there any support in Jewish tradition for the idea of a Chanukah bush?
No, and there still isn't. I don't get the point you are trying to make.
Yeah, I too would have difficulty interpreting things that are removed from their context.
Ec
Let's make it a tradition, then. Like that orange on the seder plate.
On Wed, 18 May 2005, JAY JG wrote:
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
Is there any support in Jewish tradition for the idea of a Chanukah bush?
No, and there still isn't. I don't get the point you are trying to make.
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I have a Modest Proposal. Let's date everything from the foundation of New York City as New Amsterdam, 380 years ago. Thus, this would be the year 380 or 381 YONA (Year of New Amsterdam), and pre-foundation dates could be counted as PNA (Pre=New Amsterdam). :)
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Are we STILL discussing this?
If mention of religion offends you, too bad. Mention of autofellatio offends me, but I'm not griping.
If you THINK that use of AD/BC implies "endorsement of the truth of Christianity", then you're in a fantasy world. It's just a habit. Many retail stores gear up for the Christmas holidays and even derive a substantial fraction of their income from the Xmas season. Does this mean they ENDORSE Christianity? (Hint: they are just being pragmatic.)
There are many calendars in use, throughout the English-speaking world. Even the ANTI-RELIGIOUS Soviet Union continued to use the same numbering system for years as the (Christian) West. Nobody EVER thought that this usage implied any endorsement (or even TOLERANCE) of religion on their part.
This whole thing smacks of an "anti-religious agenda", rather than any sincere effort towards neutrality. When we couldn't agree on British vs. American spelling, we chose this solution:
- Let each article use one consistent style throughout.
- If I as an American want to write theater and center, I should NOT do
so, if the article already uses theatre and centre.
- Above all, nobody should systematically go through articles purging of
the "hated style".
Ever hear of live and let live? Sheesh!
Uncle Ed _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Richard Rabinowitz wrote:
I have a Modest Proposal. Let's date everything from the foundation of New York City as New Amsterdam, 380 years ago. Thus, this would be the year 380 or 381 YONA (Year of New Amsterdam), and pre-foundation dates could be counted as PNA (Pre=New Amsterdam). :)
We don't know the exact date of this founding, so saying either "380 YONA" or "381 YONA" would be POV! Besides, choosing New York City as your pivot shows your pro-American white middle-class left-wing bias!
No, we should use the foundation of Wikipedia as a reference-point. It is conveniently close to the date we are used as the New Year (only two weeks later), so the switch-over will be seamless and painless.
Today is Saturday, 7th May, 4 AW (anno Wikipædiæ).
Timwi
On 5/21/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Richard Rabinowitz wrote:
I have a Modest Proposal. Let's date everything from the foundation of New York City as New Amsterdam, 380 years ago. Thus, this would be the year 380 or 381 YONA (Year of New Amsterdam), and pre-foundation dates could be counted as PNA (Pre=New Amsterdam). :)
We don't know the exact date of this founding, so saying either "380 YONA" or "381 YONA" would be POV! Besides, choosing New York City as your pivot shows your pro-American white middle-class left-wing bias!
No, we should use the foundation of Wikipedia as a reference-point. It is conveniently close to the date we are used as the New Year (only two weeks later), so the switch-over will be seamless and painless.
Today is Saturday, 7th May, 4 AW (anno Wikipædiæ).
Timwi
AEW
After english wikipedia
geni wrote:
On 5/21/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
No, we should use the foundation of Wikipedia as a reference-point. It is conveniently close to the date we are used as the New Year (only two weeks later), so the switch-over will be seamless and painless.
AEW
After english wikipedia
The beginning of the English Wikipedia is at the same time the beginning of Wikipedia as a whole.
Timwi wrote:
geni wrote:
On 5/21/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
No, we should use the foundation of Wikipedia as a reference-point. It is conveniently close to the date we are used as the New Year (only two weeks later), so the switch-over will be seamless and painless.
AEW
After english wikipedia
The beginning of the English Wikipedia is at the same time the beginning of Wikipedia as a whole.
We could also say "Nupedia was founded in the year 1 BW." Does anybody have a use for a year 0?
Ec
On 5/22/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
geni wrote:
On 5/21/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
No, we should use the foundation of Wikipedia as a reference-point. It is conveniently close to the date we are used as the New Year (only two weeks later), so the switch-over will be seamless and painless.
AEW
After english wikipedia
The beginning of the English Wikipedia is at the same time the beginning of Wikipedia as a whole.
I know but anno isn't a word in the english language.
Timwi wrote:
No, we should use the foundation of Wikipedia as a reference-point. It is conveniently close to the date we are used as the New Year (only two weeks later), so the switch-over will be seamless and painless.
Today is Saturday, 7th May, 4 AW (anno Wikipædiæ).
It should be AW 4 instead of 4 AW. "Anno" is in the ablative case for "in the year" :-)
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Timwi wrote:
No, we should use the foundation of Wikipedia as a reference-point. It is conveniently close to the date we are used as the New Year (only two weeks later), so the switch-over will be seamless and painless.
Today is Saturday, 7th May, 4 AW (anno Wikipædiæ).
It should be AW 4 instead of 4 AW. "Anno" is in the ablative case for "in the year" :-)
Yes, so it should be "4 AW": In the fourth year of Wikipedia. And not "in the year of Wikipedia 4".
Timwi wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Timwi wrote:
No, we should use the foundation of Wikipedia as a reference-point. It is conveniently close to the date we are used as the New Year (only two weeks later), so the switch-over will be seamless and painless.
Today is Saturday, 7th May, 4 AW (anno Wikipædiæ).
It should be AW 4 instead of 4 AW. "Anno" is in the ablative case for "in the year" :-)
Yes, so it should be "4 AW": In the fourth year of Wikipedia. And not "in the year of Wikipedia 4".
"Fourth year of Wikipedia" should be "Anno quatro Wikipediæ". So maybe "A 4 W" :-)
Ec
Pretty good points, y'know. But single-digit years are pretty weird... :)
On Sat, 21 May 2005, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Timwi wrote:
No, we should use the foundation of Wikipedia as a reference-point. It is conveniently close to the date we are used as the New Year (only two weeks later), so the switch-over will be seamless and painless.
Today is Saturday, 7th May, 4 AW (anno Wikipædiæ).
It should be AW 4 instead of 4 AW. "Anno" is in the ablative case for "in the year" :-)
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Richard Rabinowitz wrote:
Pretty good points, y'know. But single-digit years are pretty weird... :)
The Long Now Foundation http://www.longnow.org/ makes a policy of adding an extra zero to the beginning of years, to remind everyone to "think big" where future timescales are concerned. So this year would be 02005. How about making it AW 00004? As an added benefit, it'd be easier for software to sort. :)
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Richard Rabinowitz wrote:
Pretty good points, y'know. But single-digit years are pretty weird... :)
The Long Now Foundation http://www.longnow.org/ makes a policy of adding an extra zero to the beginning of years, to remind everyone to "think big" where future timescales are concerned. So this year would be 02005. How about making it AW 00004? As an added benefit, it'd be easier for software to sort. :)
Hm. Unfortunately, alphabetically "before" comes after "after".