Fun letter to the editor
I and many others on this list were taken aback 11 years ago when so many people, including supposedly learned people in the media, kept talking about the decade/century/millennia ending at the end of 1999. So imagine my surprise when lately I've been hearing in the same media about the current decade ending the end of this month. Apparently I'm not the only one feeling that way as evidenced by this Letter to the Editor in today's Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/50943106-82/decade-2000-century-2001.ht... While I agree with the writer, I'm wondering if maybe rather than criticizing, he should have complemented them for finally getting it right. Cheers, patrick :)
Of course, we who knew better understood that the new decade/century/millennium began January 1, 2001, but it took awhile for others to catch up to us. I remember the forecasts about the Y2K problem that fizzled, and all the hype about it helped add to the confusion. Could that have been the main reason for the misinformation? Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Wiggins Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 1:31 PM To: utah astronomy utah astronomy listserve Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Fun letter to the editor I and many others on this list were taken aback 11 years ago when so many people, including supposedly learned people in the media, kept talking about the decade/century/millennia ending at the end of 1999. So imagine my surprise when lately I've been hearing in the same media about the current decade ending the end of this month. Apparently I'm not the only one feeling that way as evidenced by this Letter to the Editor in today's Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/50943106-82/decade-2000-century-2001.ht ml.csp While I agree with the writer, I'm wondering if maybe rather than criticizing, he should have complemented them for finally getting it right. Cheers, patrick :) _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3344 - Release Date: 12/28/10
The problem with the letter is (other than the writer and Patrick getting it wrong, but I won't go into that now) is that I haven't seen any "end of decade" articles. Maybe he's been reading papers that are a year old! -- Joe --- On Tue, 12/28/10, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote:
From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Fun letter to the editor To: "utah astronomy utah astronomy listserve" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Tuesday, December 28, 2010, 1:30 PM I and many others on this list were taken aback 11 years ago when so many people, including supposedly learned people in the media, kept talking about the decade/century/millennia ending at the end of 1999.
So imagine my surprise when lately I've been hearing in the same media about the current decade ending the end of this month.
Apparently I'm not the only one feeling that way as evidenced by this Letter to the Editor in today's Tribune:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/50943106-82/decade-2000-century-2001.ht...
While I agree with the writer, I'm wondering if maybe rather than criticizing, he should have complemented them for finally getting it right.
Cheers,
patrick :) _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
participants (3)
-
Joe Bauman -
Kim -
Patrick Wiggins