The perpetual calendar

Dr J R Stockton wrote:

[...]

It is OK to use CE to stand for Christian Era, as long as
the readers will know that.

Which is unlikely, since those who know it at all will
likely know that it stands for 'Common Era'.

Brian

On Mar 10, 6:03*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:
In sci.astro message
oglegroups.com, Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:16:33, Andrew Usher
posted:

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In sci.astro message
ooglegroups.com, Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:18:50, Peter T. Daniels
posted:

The people who put dates on cornerstones these days (since "CE" was
invented, that is) don't generally provide any era designation.

The dates on cornerstones are necessarily AD, if presumed to be on the
Julian or Gregorian Calendars, because BC had already ceased when those
were invented.

Peter clearly thinks we all need to write CE now and there's something
wrong with AD.

It is OK to use CE to stand for Christian Era, as long as the readers
will know that.

No reader will "know" that, because it doesn't. It stands for "Common
Era," and it was introduced so as not to date events in the non-
Christian world according to a "Lord" the non-Christian world does not
recognize.

Consistent heathens should have a term other than 'Gregorian' to
describe the current calendar; Gregory was after all a Papal name, not
his baptismal one. *'Ugoic' and 'Buoncompagnian' sound far less elegant..
"ISO 8601" would be accurate; but no true US red-neck would use it.

On Mar 10, 6:29*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:
In sci.astro message , Wed, 10 Mar 2010
07:24:02, Evan Kirshenbaum posted:

The Wikipedia page on "Anno Mundi" has a picture of a cornerstone
(from 1916 AD) with an "AL" date on it, for "Anno Lucis", which
reckons the world from 4000 BC, apparently used by Freemasons.

So, according to Google, it is said. *The cornerstone says "...
"SEPT 14 1916 - A.L. 5916" and a number of pages, including that Wiki
one, agree that A.L. = A.D. + 4000.

However, the A.D. system is a count from (fictitious) A.D. 0 = zero, and
that is Year (+-) 0 by Astronomer's Notation. *Four thousand years
earlier was Astronomer's -4000, which was B.C. 4001.

No, there is no "A.D. 0" ("(fictitious)" or otherwise).

There seems to be a discrepancy; you don't mean 4001 BC, but maybe you
ought to.

http://www.freemasonry.london.museum/faqs.htm, probably reliable,
gives +4000, does not mention B.C. 4000, and indicates that the 4000 was
an approximation to representing Ussher's B.C. 4004.

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Mar 9, 7:16 pm, Andrew Usher wrote:
Dr J R Stockton wrote:

In sci.astro message
ooglegroups.com, Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:18:50, Peter T. Daniels
posted:
The people who put dates on cornerstones these days (since "CE" was
invented, that is) don't generally provide any era designation.
The dates on cornerstones are necessarily AD, if presumed to be on the
Julian or Gregorian Calendars, because BC had already ceased when those
were invented.
Peter clearly thinks we all need to write CE now and there's something
wrong with AD.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????

Why would you put "C.E." on a cornerstone?

It makes no sense to use "A.D." in any context that isn't explicitly
Christian, which is why "C.E." was invented in the middle of the last
century.

Since most people have no idea what "AD" stands for, any more than they
know the meaning of "am" or "pm" or even "ie" and "eg", I really can't
see it makes any difference. With one exception: most grown-up people
did their growing up with "AD" and most history books still have "AD" in
them. Moreover, I bet a lot of people who do use "CE" think it stands
for "Christian Era" which is as explicit as you can get.

It was a pointless change, which, in any case, has only been adopted by
a few.

--

Rob Bannister

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In sci.astro message
oglegroups.com, Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:16:33, Andrew Usher
posted:
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In sci.astro message
ooglegroups.com, Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:18:50, Peter T. Daniels
posted:
The people who put dates on cornerstones these days (since "CE" was
invented, that is) don't generally provide any era designation.
The dates on cornerstones are necessarily AD, if presumed to be on the
Julian or Gregorian Calendars, because BC had already ceased when those
were invented.
Peter clearly thinks we all need to write CE now and there's something
wrong with AD.

It is OK to use CE to stand for Christian Era, as long as the readers
will know that.

Consistent heathens should have a term other than 'Gregorian' to
describe the current calendar; Gregory was after all a Papal name, not
his baptismal one. 'Ugoic' and 'Buoncompagnian' sound far less elegant.
"ISO 8601" would be accurate; but no true US red-neck would use it.


Why would heathens, pagans or atheists object to a name change? People
change their names for all sorts of weird reasons and the changes are
usually accepted. Some people are remembered by their original name,
some by their changed name, some by their nom de plume and some by both
or even all their names. There is no need to attack heathens for this.

--

Rob Bannister

Brian M. Scott wrote:
Dr J R Stockton wrote:

[...]

It is OK to use CE to stand for Christian Era, as long as
the readers will know that.

Which is unlikely, since those who know it at all will
likely know that it stands for 'Common Era'.

Brian

Why would they? I see "CE" frequently on the Net - on Usenet and on the
Web. I know it is a twee version of "AD" and "Christian Era" is the most
obvious interpretation once I've given up on "Calendar E?".

--

Rob Bannister

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????

Why would you put "C.E." on a cornerstone?

If it means the same thing as AD ...

It makes no sense to use "A.D." in any context that isn't explicitly
Christian, which is why "C.E." was invented in the middle of the last
century.

Funny, then, that exactly that has been done for over a thousand
years.

Andrew Usher

Dr J R Stockton wrote:

Peter clearly thinks we all need to write CE now and there's something
wrong with AD.

It is OK to use CE to stand for Christian Era, as long as the readers
will know that.

Consistent heathens should have a term other than 'Gregorian' to
describe the current calendar; Gregory was after all a Papal name, not
his baptismal one. 'Ugoic' and 'Buoncompagnian' sound far less elegant.
"ISO 8601" would be accurate; but no true US red-neck would use it.

Well I'm a 'heathen' and have no problem with 'Gregorian' or 'AD'. In
fact, I think any attempt to use something else is just silly.

Andrew Usher

On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:46:26 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
wrote:

On Mar 10, 3:56*pm, Hatunen wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 19:44:45 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
wrote:
On Mar 9, 5:43*pm, Hatunen wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 04:48:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
wrote:

And you won't find a president ending a speech -- let alone every
public appearance -- with "God bless America" before Reagan. (When did
the Irving Berlin tune become ubiquitous?)

During World War II, as sung by Kate Smith.

No.

Why do you say, "No"? Are you refuting that Kate Smith sang it or
that it was during WW2?

I am not "refuting" anything. I am denying that the song became
ubiquitous during WWII.

Were you there?

It was a joke that some team in Philadelphia used Kate Smith before
every game. When was that?

Never heard of it. But I'm not much of a baseball fan.

I didn't say anything about baseball.

Which shows how little a sports fan I am.

Nowadays it's as if it has replaced the long, unsingable one as The
Anthem.

Odd. I rarely hear the song these days, and never when the SSB
should have been played. As an instrumental only GBA isn't as
anthemy as SSB. It's the words to GBA that are so sentimental.

Many BASEBALL teams use it at the seventh-inning stretch in place of
"Take Me Out to the Ball Game."

Interesting. How many is "many"?

BTW, I have no trouble singing the SSB.

Singing it well? So you're probably a trained singer.

@nd BTW, someone in some op-ed column this week noted that the
Olympically much played "O Canada" is about the only national
anthem you can hum.

Did they check out all 205 or so national anthems? Including the dozen
or more that use the same tune as "America"?

Good grief, you're literal. I, personally, take the "about" to
indicate there could be others.

I, myself, would be quite content if the SSB were replaced by
"America the Beautiful"

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Mar 10, 9:28*pm, Andrew Usher wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????

Why would you put "C.E." on a cornerstone?

If it means the same thing as AD ...

It makes no sense to use "A.D." in any context that isn't explicitly
Christian, which is why "C.E." was invented in the middle of the last
century.

Funny, then, that exactly that has been done for over a thousand
years.

And for how many of those thousand years have those elided agents of
the passive verb given a damn about the non-Christian majority of the
world's inhabitants?