I should have commented in conclusion of my post below that it's not because the calendar may have survived for longer time than the calendar reform that its demise was *independent* of the former!
When opposition against 'the package' was making its inroads the demise of the metric clock was much more easily implemented than changing the calendar for obvious logistical reasons. But make no mistake about it! The whole mindset and opposition to this kind of reform was largely due to the gravest more serious religious concerns attached to the *calendar part of the calendar/time reform proposal*! And I firmly conclude with what I've already repeated here, *IF* metric time were proposed just a few years earlier, with no strings attached to a calendar reform (a piecemeal approach to reform the time construct overall, y inclu le calendrier), the move would have been highly successful. There was much less philosophical opposition to this change than to the calendar aspect. The calendar reform touched a *fundamental/critical/vital* value and belief that goes across the boundary of ALL religions, that a God entity was responsible for the introduction of a 7-day weekly cycle and therefore, *by golly* should NEVER EVER be touched or messed with! It was not the sacred day itself that was at stake but the *keeping track* of a specific sacred day of *a week* that was at stake. The use of a 10-day cycle would render such observation of sacred days extremely difficult to all faiths. Therefore, it HAD to be scrapped. Marcus On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 22:29:54 Ma Be wrote: >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 > > ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
