On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 16:57:06 John David Galt wrote: ...Ma Be wrote: >> Not exactly, John. The real truth of the matter is that metric time was >> proposed *alongside calendar reform*... > >Sorry, you're completely wrong. Both the revolutionary clock and calendar >were used for that 16 months, and the calendar persisted until Waterloo.
??? Did I speak Greek or something else, my friend? You and I were saying the *exact same thing*! To my knowledge 'alongside' and 'both... were used' are precisely the same description of facts but with different wording. Therefore, how can you say '(I'm) completely wrong (SIC)'?... The fact of the matter (and please consult any anals of *history* - you can ask our reputable historian in this list, Han Maenen, about that. He may be able to confirm the essence of what I wrote to you) is metric time flopped **BECAUSE** its proposal was *attached* to calendar reform (or, at a minimum, viewed as an integral part of it). In other words, since the calendar aspect was flatly rejected (and with extremely good reason I might add), metric time also got entangled in that rejection! ... >During the same period the National Assembly required all priests (from >before the Revolution) to sign statements renouncing all belief in God and >accepting their Goddess of Reason instead. So the notion that they would >balk at ticking off every religion on the planet just doesn't fly. >... Religious 'renouncing' apart, the fact of the matter is that calendar reform brought the demise of metric time since these were intrinsically related or part of the package, so to speak. Had metric time been *dissociated* from the calendar proposal and the stupid 60-60-24 would be history by now!!! Marcus ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
