khenry@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Ken Henry) (11/27/90)
Does anybody know why "cal 9 1752" produce incorrect results? It seems to be in the Unix systems I checked (BSD 4.3, AIX 3.1). -Ken -- +========================================================================+ | Ken Henry, 203 Myrtle #102 | khenry@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu|319-335-5491 W| | Iowa City, IA 52246 | khenrypb@uiamvs.bitnet |319-338-5449 H| +========================================================================+
Nathan.Torkington@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Nathan Torkington) (11/27/90)
In article <3313@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> khenry@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Ken Henry) writes: >Does anybody know why "cal 9 1752" produce incorrect >results? It seems to be in the Unix systems I >checked (BSD 4.3, AIX 3.1). I believe there was a date change sometime, where the civilised world lost a fortnight to allow the 'old calendar' to become the 'new calendar' which would be in sync with the seasons ... -Nat. [ Death@comp.vuw.ac.nz aka Blackadder@st1.vuw.ac.nz aka Nathan Torkington ] [ "Graeme Lee ... a condom on the penis of progress" - Bob Jones ] [ This is not an official communication of Victoria University, Wellington NZ ]
gpvos@cs.vu.nl (Gerben 'P' Vos) (11/27/90)
khenry@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Ken Henry) writes: >Does anybody know why "cal 9 1752" produce incorrect >results? It seems to be in the Unix systems I >checked (BSD 4.3, AIX 3.1). $ cal 9 1752 September 1752 S M Tu W Th F S 1 2 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Actually, these are the correct results, at least in some parts of the world. Up till 1752, a different calendar was in use, which was more incorrect than the one we now use. Because of that, the dates had gotten eleven days out of sync with reality. When the change occurred, there were many protests from people, complaining they lost eleven days of their life! In many countries, however, this calendar is indeed wrong. Obviously, this is what you meant in the first place :-) :-). I seem to remember that most parts of Europe (excluding, of course, England :-)) changed in 1593, and losed only ten days instead of eleven in the process. - Gerben. -- --- Gerben Vos - Aconet: BIGBEN!Gerben Vos - Internet: gpvos@cs.vu.nl ---- Definition of intelligence: Anything a human does better than a computer
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (11/27/90)
khenry@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Ken Henry) in <3313@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> writes:
Does anybody know why "cal 9 1752" produce incorrect
results? It seems to be in the Unix systems I
checked (BSD 4.3, AIX 3.1).
The calendar was revised back then; read any recent WORLD ALMANAC or modern
encyclopedia for more background info.
Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) (11/27/90)
khenry@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Ken Henry) writes: >Does anybody know why "cal 9 1752" produce incorrect >results? It seems to be in the Unix systems I >checked (BSD 4.3, AIX 3.1). Actually it's correct. That month was shorted 13 days (or whatever) due to calendar reform; the previous calendar was getting out of step with the seasons, so in one fell swoop they caught up the calendar and instituted a new leap-year strategy. Kenneth Herron -- Kenneth Herron kherron@ms.uky.edu University of Kentucky (606) 257-2975 Department of Mathematics "Never trust gimmicky gadgets" -- The Doctor
jerry@TALOS.UUCP (Jerry Gitomer) (11/28/90)
khenry@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Ken Henry) writes: >Does anybody know why "cal 9 1752" produce incorrect >results? It seems to be in the Unix systems I >checked (BSD 4.3, AIX 3.1). >-Ken That is the month in which England switched calendars. They really did jump from the 2nd to the 14th. The change was needed to compensate for errors in the older calendar. Incidentally in most of Europe the switch in calendars occurred at a different time. Jerry
fuchs@it.uka.de (Harald Fuchs) (11/28/90)
Nathan.Torkington@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Nathan Torkington) writes: >In article <3313@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> khenry@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Ken Henry) writes: >>Does anybody know why "cal 9 1752" produce incorrect >>results? It seems to be in the Unix systems I >>checked (BSD 4.3, AIX 3.1). >I believe there was a date change sometime, where the civilised world lost >a fortnight to allow the 'old calendar' to become the 'new calendar' which >would be in sync with the seasons ... You seem to think of the Julian -> Gregorian calendar shift, but that was 1582 AD. How about a little perl script? Doesn't handle Julian dates either but should work for the Gregorian calendar. I'm sure one of the Perl lords on the net will come up with a one-liner, but for the time being... ----------------- snip snip snippety snip ------------------------------ #!/usr/local/bin/perl $0 =~ s:.*/::; $[ = 1; # Argument check if ($#ARGV == 1) { $all = 1; $m = 1; $y = shift; } elsif ($#ARGV == 2) { $m = shift; die "$0: bad month \"$m\"\n" if $m !~ /^\d{1,2}$/ || $m < 1 || $m > 12; $y = shift; } else { die "Usage: $0 [month] year\n"; } die "$0: bad year \"$y\"\n" if $y !~ /^\d{4}$/ || $y <= 1582; # First weekday $w = &wday (1, $m, $y) + 1; print "$y\n"; if ($all) { for $m (1..12) { $w = &month ($m, $y, $w); } } else { $w = &month ($m, $y, $w); } sub wday { # (d, m, y) # Day of the week, Gregorian calendar local ($d, $m, $y) = @_; local ($f) = $y * 365 + $d + 31 * ($m - 1); if ($m <= 2) { $y--; } else { $f -= int ($m * 0.4 + 2.3); } $f += int ($y / 4) - int (0.75 * int ($y / 100) + 0.75); # Return 0 for Monday, ..., 6 for Sunday ($f + 5) % 7; } sub month { # (m, y, w) # Print out one month local ($m, $y, $w) = @_; local (@l) = (31, 28, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31); $l[2]++ if !($y % 4) && $y % 100 || !($y % 400); local (@n) = (Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec); print "\n$n[$m]\n\n"; local (@wd) = (Mon, Tue, Wed, Thu, Fri, Sat, Sun); local ($_); for (1..$l[$m]) { printf "%s\t%2d\n", $wd[$w], $_; $w = ($w % 7) + 1; } $w; } # local variables: # mode: perl # end: ----------------- snip snip snippety snip ------------------------------ -- Harald Fuchs <fuchs@it.uka.de> <fuchs%it.uka.de@relay.cs.net> ... <fuchs@telematik.informatik.uni-karlsruhe.dbp.de> *gulp*
goudreau@larrybud.rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) (11/28/90)
In article <1990Nov27.170041.28341@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, psmielke@lotus.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Mielke) writes: > > > I believe there was a date change sometime, where the civilised > > world lost a fortnight to allow the 'old calendar' to become the > > 'new calendar' which would be in sync with the seasons ... > > It was more than a fortnight, and it took the governments white a bit ^^^^^^^^^ > of explaining tothe general populous that they were not being ripped > off 2 weeks of their life (i'm not quite sure if it came to riots in ^^^^^^^ > the streets) Begging your pardon, but a fortnight *is* two weeks. In any case, the British Empire's conversion to the Gregorian calendar in 1752 was implemented by having September 2nd be followed directly by September 14th. This is a loss of eleven days, not "more than a fortnight". But you're correct about the unrest in the general populace. Time and date keeping was much more parochial and provincial several centuries ago compared to the present. Not only did each town reckon its own (solar-based) time of day (standard "time zones" did not appear until introduced by American railroads in the late 1800s), but it was also common for neighboring countries to use completely different calendars. Britain lagged most of continental Europe in finally converting to the Gregorian system, but note that Russia did not convert until after its revolution in 1917! That's how the so-called "October Revolution" ended up with its anniversary in November. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation 62 Alexander Drive goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau USA
rls@svcs1.UUCP (Bob Strait) (11/28/90)
khenry@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Ken Henry) writes: >Does anybody know why "cal 9 1752" produce incorrect >results? It seems to be in the Unix systems I >checked (BSD 4.3, AIX 3.1). Much depends on what you mean by "incorrect." September, 1752, was when the English-speaking world adopted the Gregorian calendar, a couple of centuries after Pope Gregory and the Roman Empire converted. By that time the Julian calendar was eleven days out of sync with the Gregorian calendar so they simply dropped the 11 days. Thus, the next day after September 2, 1752, (Julian) became September 14, 1752, (Gregorian). It looks funny, but it IS "correct." By the way, that's why we (used to) celebrate Washington's Birthday on February 22. Washington was actually born on February 11, 1732 (Julian). -- BUBBA (aka Bob Strait) ...!mips!svcs1!rls Silicon Valley Computer Society Sunnyvale, CA --
kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley ) (11/28/90)
In article fuchs@it.uka.de (Harald Fuchs) writes: >Nathan.Torkington@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Nathan Torkington) writes: >>In article khenry@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Ken Henry) writes: >>>Does anybody know why "cal 9 1752" produce incorrect > >>I believe there was a date change sometime, where the civilised world lost >>a fortnight to allow the 'old calendar' to become the 'new calendar' which >>would be in sync with the seasons ... > >You seem to think of the Julian -> Gregorian calendar shift, but that >was 1582 AD. In Europe, yes; but here in the colonies (where we're so progressive :-)) it took us 170 years to figure out that we should change the calendar. Thank God we did it before the revolution, 'cause if we waited 'till after, Congress probably would've put it on their schedule behind the Federal budget, and we'd still be two weeks behind Europe today. In the waning days of the Julian calendar usage in North America, if ships could make the Atlantic crossing in less than two weeks, you could mail a letter from London and have it arrive in New York before the day it was sent. Daniel Boorstin, in his book "Discoverers" mentions that American landlords wanted the full months rent for that September, while all the tenents wanted to pay only two weeks rent. Can't imagine why? -- Kaleb Keithley Jet Propulsion Labs kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov Good girls get to go to heaven, but bad girls get to go everywhere!
2011_552@uwovax.uwo.ca (Terry Gaetz (Astronomy, U. Western Ontario)) (11/28/90)
In article <fuchs.659748692@t500m0>, fuchs@it.uka.de (Harald Fuchs) writes: > Nathan.Torkington@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Nathan Torkington) writes: > >>In article <3313@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> khenry@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Ken Henry) writes: >>>Does anybody know why "cal 9 1752" produce incorrect >>>results? It seems to be in the Unix systems I >>>checked (BSD 4.3, AIX 3.1). > >>I believe there was a date change sometime, where the civilised world lost >>a fortnight to allow the 'old calendar' to become the 'new calendar' which >>would be in sync with the seasons ... > > You seem to think of the Julian -> Gregorian calendar shift, but that > was 1582 AD. Pope Gregory issued a papal bull in 1582 ordering that the new calendar be introduced. It was adopted immediately by Catholic countries and principalities, but the Greek church and the Protestant countries refused. The changeover straggled over several centuries - Romania used the Julian calendar until 1919. In September 1752, England and the American colonies adopted the Gregorian calendar. "Cal 9 1752" correctly handles the transition as adopted by England and the United States. -- Terry Gaetz -- gaetz@uwovax.uwo.ca or gaetz@uwovax.BITNET
hotte@sunrise.in-berlin.de (Horst Laumer) (11/28/90)
khenry@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Ken Henry) writes: >Does anybody know why "cal 9 1752" produce incorrect >results? It seems to be in the Unix systems I >checked (BSD 4.3, AIX 3.1). You claim that the output is incorrect without posting it here. I think you mock about the 11 days missing, which is a) correct according to the history of mankind b) referenced in the manuals, at least on the AT&T SYSV line. So, before claiming an error, and since you proved the output on several machines, decide who is wrong: the command you issued or your opinion about "what is a bug" ! Sincere HL -- ============================================================================ Horst Laumer, Kantstrasse 107, D-1000 Berlin 12 ! Bang-Adress: A Relict Of Domain: hotte@sunrise.in-berlin.de ! Pre-Routing-Times, When Bang: ...unido!fub!geminix!sunrise!hotte ! Computers Were Unmanagable
thorinn@rimfaxe.diku.dk (Lars Henrik Mathiesen) (11/28/90)
kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley ) writes: >Daniel Boorstin, in his book "Discoverers" mentions that American >landlords wanted the full months rent for that September, while all the >tenents wanted to pay only two weeks rent. Can't imagine why? Probably because they only got two weeks' pay. -- Lars Mathiesen, DIKU, U of Copenhagen, Denmark [uunet!]mcsun!diku!thorinn Institute of Datalogy -- we're scientists, not engineers. thorinn@diku.dk
tim@delluk.uucp (Tim Wright) (11/28/90)
In <3313@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> khenry@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Ken Henry) writes: >Does anybody know why "cal 9 1752" produce incorrect >results? It seems to be in the Unix systems I >checked (BSD 4.3, AIX 3.1). Find a good history book and lookup why it produces the *correct* results. Tim -- Tim Wright, Dell Computer Corp. (UK) | Email address Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 1RW | Domain: tim@dell.co.uk Tel: +44-344-860456 | Uucp: ...!ukc!delluk!tim "What's the problem? You've got an IQ of six thousand, haven't you?"
goudreau@larrybud.rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) (11/29/90)
In article <1990Nov28.011932.19555@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov>, kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) writes: > > In the waning days of the Julian calendar usage in North America, if > ships could make the Atlantic crossing in less than two weeks, you > could mail a letter from London and have it arrive in New York > before the day it was sent. Not likely, since 1752 was when the entire British *Empire* (not just its colonies) switched to the Gregorian system. Most of the rest of Europe had switched at various earlier times. So your "time-travel" effect wouldn't have worked between England and North America. And anyway, the same effect could be achieved with far less effort simply by crossing the English Channel from France (Gregorian) to England (Julian). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation 62 Alexander Drive goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau USA
kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley ) (11/29/90)
In article <1990Nov28.184933.5838@dg-rtp.dg.com> goudreau@larrybud.rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: >In article <1990Nov28.011932.19555@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov>, kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) writes: >> >> In the waning days of the Julian calendar usage in North America, if >> ships could make the Atlantic crossing in less than two weeks, you >> could mail a letter from London and have it arrive in New York >> before the day it was sent. > >Not likely, since 1752 was when the entire British *Empire* (not just >its colonies) switched to the Gregorian system. Most of the rest >of Europe had switched at various earlier times. Yeah, read what I meant, not what I said. -- Kaleb Keithley Jet Propulsion Labs kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov Good girls get to go to heaven, but bad girls get to go everywhere!
chris@mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) (11/29/90)
In article <7895.2752d336@uwovax.uwo.ca> 2011_552@uwovax.uwo.ca (Terry Gaetz (Astronomy, U. Western Ontario)) writes: >Pope Gregory issued a papal bull in 1582 ordering that the new calendar be >introduced. It was adopted immediately by Catholic countries and >principalities, but the Greek church and the Protestant countries refused. >The changeover straggled over several centuries - Romania used the Julian >calendar until 1919. (Trust astronomers to know about dates! :-) ) >In September 1752, England and the American colonies adopted the Gregorian >calendar. "Cal 9 1752" correctly handles the transition as adopted by >England and the United States. Of course, now that Unix is being `internationalized', someone will have to fix `cal'. Clearly the right answer is to adopt the System V convention, and code the rules into an environment variable. :-) (The above was intended as a sarcastic comment about SV `TZ' rules. Why POSIX did not just adopt the Arthur Olson approach is beyond me.) -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 405 2750) Domain: chris@cs.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris
nick@esacs.UUCP (Nikolaos Tsivranidis) (11/29/90)
Forget why 'cal 9 1752' doesn't work. Who was the brilliant (wo)man who wrote this program? Simply amazing! - nick -
JRowe@exua.exeter.ac.uk (John Rowe) (11/30/90)
It doesn't. (Sorry if you've already had dozens of versions of the following posted). Under the old Julien calender, instituted by Julius Caeser no less, there was a leap year every four years. I believe it was the Egyptians who discovered this one because the seasons and the flooding of the Nile were happening later every year. It turned out this was slightly too many so the system was changed so that years divisable by 100 are not leap years unless they are divisable by 400 (eg 1900 wasn't, 2000 will be). My dictionary says this was done by Pope Gregory in 1582 but not adopted in England 'till - you guessed it 1752 when people went to bed on Wednesday the 2nd of September and got up on Thursday the 14th. Incidently, as I recall there were great protests about this as people thought they were losing 11 days of their lives. Plus, the Russians being backward didn't do this which is why the October revolution didn't happen in October, rather like the battle of Stalingrad which happened in Volgagrad. John John Rowe Exeter University Computational Physics group. Exeter England.
kstock@gouldfr.encore.fr (Kevin STOCK - MIS (Compta)) (11/30/90)
Subject: Re: Why does "cal 9 1752" produce incorrect results? Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions Summary: public domain version References: <1990Nov27.170041.28341@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <5@esacs.UUCP> In article <5@esacs.UUCP>, nick@esacs.UUCP (Nikolaos Tsivranidis) writes: > > Forget why 'cal 9 1752' doesn't work. Who was the > brilliant (wo)man who wrote this program? Simply amazing! > > - nick - Several years back, someone posting a PD version (I think it was called "calend") which attempted to do the same thing. Unfortunately, it only checked whether the year was 1752 to decide whether to remove the days. Since it was based on a count of the number of days each month needed, 1752 ended up looking like this: 1752 Jan Feb Mar S M Tu W Th F S S M Tu W Th F S S M Tu W Th F S 1 2 14 15 1 1 2 14 15 16 17 18 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 37 38 39 40 41 42 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 40 41 42 etc. Presumably the author thought that people would only check September, not the whole of the year! It's odd - I don't seem to have the source any more ... ,---------------. ,-+-------------. | Kevin Stock | | E N C O R E | | | `-------------+-' kstock@gouldfr.encore.fr `---------------' kstock@gouldfr.UUCP
jon@jonlab.UUCP (Jon H. LaBadie) (12/01/90)
In article <614@svcs1.UUCP>, rls@svcs1.UUCP (Bob Strait) writes: > khenry@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Ken Henry) writes: > > > Does anybody know why "cal 9 1752" produce incorrect results? > > Much depends on what you mean by "incorrect." September, 1752, > was when the English-speaking world adopted the Gregorian > calendar, a couple of centuries after Pope Gregory and the > Roman Empire converted. By that time the Julian calendar was > eleven days out of sync with the Gregorian calendar so they > simply dropped the 11 days. Thus, the next day after > September 2, 1752, (Julian) became September 14, 1752, (Gregorian). Except for thinking the naming of the calendars was reversed, I have no quibble with Bob's answer. And I have no authority to support my (previously wrong?) idea. Bob's answer does lead me to ask a question however. I have fequently heard the "+j" option of the date command (which outputs the day of the year - 1 to 366) referred to the "Julian" date. Where did this nomenclature come from? Jon -- Jon LaBadie {att, princeton, bcr, attmail!auxnj}!jonlab!jon
paul@prcrs.UUCP (Paul Hite) (12/04/90)
In article <890@jonlab.UUCP>, jon@jonlab.UUCP (Jon H. LaBadie) writes: > Bob's answer does lead me to ask a question however. I have > fequently heard the "+j" option of the date command (which outputs > the day of the year - 1 to 366) referred to the "Julian" date. > Where did this nomenclature come from? > Well, some guy named Joseph Justus Scaliger decided that astronomers needed a different system of reckoning days. His system begins on Jan. 1, 4713 B.C. That day is numbered 1 and each day after it gets the next number. "Jan 1, 1991 will be Julian Day 2,448,256" according to my almanac. The screwy part is that on Jan. 1, 3267 A. D. we go back to Julian Day 1. Another source says that Julian Days start at noon and go till the next noon. As for the Julian Day/Gregorian Calendar conflict, I'd say it was intentional. Mr. Scaliger devised his system "A year after the Gregorian calendar was first instituted" (according again to my almanac). His father was named Julius Caesar Scaliger. Looks to me like Joseph didn't appprove of Pope Gregory's efforts. Here's something that I haven't seen mentioned: When the Julian Calendar was introduced by Julius Caesar in 46 B. C., the seasons were off a bit. So he added some days to square things away. So "With a total 445 days, 46 B. C. is the longest calendar year on record." It doesn't say just where these days were added. Paul Hite PRC Realty Systems McLean,Va uunet!prcrs!paul (703) 556-2243 You can't tell which way the train went by studying its tracks.
tr@SAMADAMS.PRINCETON.EDU (Tom Reingold) (12/06/90)
Lots of people responded to this question. Did so many people think
they would be the only one who knew and was willing to post?
I suggest that you look at entire thread before posting to prevent
redundancy. The way to do that with rn is to hit 'm' to mark the
article and then '^N' to go to the next article with the same subject
line. I trust there are ways to do this with other newsreaders.
--
Tom Reingold
tr@samadams.princeton.edu OR ...!princeton!samadams!tr
"Warning: Do not drive with Auto-Shade in place. Remove
from windshield before starting ignition."no-one@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (no-one) (12/06/90)
In article <name deleted to protect the guilty> writes: >Lots of people responded to this question. Did so many people think >they would be the only one who knew and was willing to post? > >I suggest that you look at entire thread before posting to prevent >redundancy. The way to do that with rn is to hit 'm' to mark the >article and then '^N' to go to the next article with the same subject >line. I trust there are ways to do this with other newsreaders. I said I wasn't going to do this.... Damn, I'm doing it anyway. High marks for the rn tutorial. I'll bet you don't shout the answers to Jeopardy questions at the TV either. :-) no-one@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov
gpvos@cs.vu.nl (Gerben 'P' Vos) (12/12/90)
tr@SAMADAMS.PRINCETON.EDU (Tom Reingold) writes: >Lots of people responded to this question. Did so many people think >they would be the only one who knew and was willing to post? >I suggest that you look at entire thread before posting to prevent >redundancy. That's one problem, and it can be overcome (if all readers cooperate -- that's of course a silly assumption, but anyway...) in the way you mentioned. The bigger problem is that sometimes news takes a few days to get from faraway corners of the world (like an obscure site in the U.S. of A.) to other faraway corners of the world (like Europe, or Australia, or...). Now, i see an article. I think: "Hey, that's an easy one. Let's hit 'f'". Then i think: "Oh, let's first see if someone else answered." I do that, i can't find anything, i go back to the article, i hit 'f'. I answer the question. Now, before my followup gets to johndoe@utopia.faraway.com, several days may pass. In between, someone there thinks: "Hey, that's an easy one. Let's hit 'f'". Etcetera. The moral of this story: That's why replying is so often much better than following-up. It only floods one mailbox, not the whole network. Disclaimer: I know i'm guilty of this myself. - Gerben. -- --- Gerben Vos - Aconet: BIGBEN!Gerben Vos - Internet: gpvos@cs.vu.nl "While you are here, your wives and girlfriends are dating handsome American movie and TV stars. Stars like Tom Selleck, Bruce Willis, and Bart Simpson." -- Baghdad Betty
hotte@sunrise.in-berlin.de (Horst Laumer) (12/19/90)
gpvos@cs.vu.nl (Gerben 'P' Vos) writes: >tr@SAMADAMS.PRINCETON.EDU (Tom Reingold) writes: >>Lots of people responded to this question. Did so many people think >>they would be the only one who knew and was willing to post? >>I suggest that you look at entire thread before posting to prevent >>redundancy. >[...] >The moral of this story: >That's why replying is so often much better than following-up. >It only floods one mailbox, not the whole network. I second that, although I'm an 'f'-guy, too (because international mail makes extra cost to me and a lot of other guys on the net). My personal belief is, that opinions should be mailed, but infor- mation should be spread (or ain't that one of the purposes of nets?). --HL -- ============================================================================ Horst Laumer, Kantstrasse 107, D-1000 Berlin 12 ! Bang-Adress: Junk-Food INET: hotte@sunrise.in-berlin.de ! for Autorouters -- me -- UUCP: ..unido!fub!geminix!sunrise.in-berlin.de!hotte