Here in Jacksonville, Florida, I see February 21, 2001, and I also see 2-21-2001, but I really never observe, locally, any other way of writing the date. (By the way, Feb. 21, 2001, is the date we will devote an entire Andy Johnson radio program, again, to promotion U.S. metrication, carried at http://www.wjgr.com for folks tuning in on the internet. I will have Bill Hooper in the studio with me. But I digress.) I will to track along carefully if some of you would like to explain again the best plans for worldwide uniformity in the way we write the date. Slowly I have learned to give up the 12-hour clock. So now I will try to give up the way I was taught to write Feburary 21, 2001, if you will again explain the logic behind a more widely used format. Thanks. Your friend, who hopes to meet most of you somehow sometime, Andy Johnson Jacksonville, Florida --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [USMA:10841] Re: UK news article with only > FFU > Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 18:37:45 +0000 > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:07:29 -0500, "kilopascal" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >2001-02-04 > > > >Here is a comparison of the three (in order of > Guardian, Time, Independant). > >At least the Guardian article quoted Dr. Shepard > speaking metric. The > >Independant article only converts some of the > dimensions to FFU, not all. > >The lost area is stated as 32 km^3 in the Guardian > and 31 km^3 in the > >Independant. The Times reduces it to 28 km^3 by > stating it as "over" one > >million cubic feet. Note the Guardian uses the US > date format. > > John: > > This is not the 'US date format'. Many people here > use the Jan 30, > 2000 format, but we don't abbreviate it as > 1/30/2000, only 30/1/2000. > > Chris > -- > UK Metrication Association: > http://www.metric.org.uk/ > __________________________________________________ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
