Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
URCM New RFD Date
24 views
Skip to first unread message
Judith
Mar 19, 2013, 8:54:06 AM3/19/13
to
Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations of a new
RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired.
Mark Goodge
Mar 19, 2013, 4:01:55 PM3/19/13
to
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:54:06 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>
>
>Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations of a new
>RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired.
It is stipulated precisely in the guidelines: "at least 3 months have
passed from the date of the Fast Track notice, or the close of the vote".
You know when the close of the vote was, so you also know the earliest that
a new RFD can be published. At least, you do if you understand how to use a
calendar.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
typed:
>
>
>Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations of a new
>RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired.
passed from the date of the Fast Track notice, or the close of the vote".
You know when the close of the vote was, so you also know the earliest that
a new RFD can be published. At least, you do if you understand how to use a
calendar.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Judith
Mar 19, 2013, 4:35:37 PM3/19/13
to
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:01:55 +0000, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:54:06 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>
>>
>>Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations of a new
>>RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired.
>
>It is stipulated precisely in the guidelines: "at least 3 months have
>passed from the date of the Fast Track notice, or the close of the vote".
>
>You know when the close of the vote was, so you also know the earliest that
>a new RFD can be published. At least, you do if you understand how to use a
>calendar.
>
>Mark
Many thanks for giving the precise date in order to avoid any confusion.
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:54:06 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>
>>
>>Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations of a new
>>RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired.
>
>It is stipulated precisely in the guidelines: "at least 3 months have
>passed from the date of the Fast Track notice, or the close of the vote".
>
>You know when the close of the vote was, so you also know the earliest that
>a new RFD can be published. At least, you do if you understand how to use a
>calendar.
>
>Mark
Appreciated.
Are you perhaps a christian?
Mark Goodge
Mar 19, 2013, 5:35:43 PM3/19/13
to
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:35:37 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
trying to mislead you. But, by pointing you instead to the authoritative
source of the information you seek, neither error nor deception is
possible.
typed:
>On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:01:55 +0000, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:54:06 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
>>typed:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations of a new
>>>RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired.
>>
>>It is stipulated precisely in the guidelines: "at least 3 months have
>>passed from the date of the Fast Track notice, or the close of the vote".
>>
>>You know when the close of the vote was, so you also know the earliest that
>>a new RFD can be published. At least, you do if you understand how to use a
>>calendar.
>>
>>Mark
>
>
>Many thanks for giving the precise date in order to avoid any confusion.
>Appreciated.
Indeed. Had I merely given you a date, you may have thought me mistaken, or
>On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:01:55 +0000, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:54:06 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
>>typed:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations of a new
>>>RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired.
>>
>>It is stipulated precisely in the guidelines: "at least 3 months have
>>passed from the date of the Fast Track notice, or the close of the vote".
>>
>>You know when the close of the vote was, so you also know the earliest that
>>a new RFD can be published. At least, you do if you understand how to use a
>>calendar.
>>
>>Mark
>
>
>Many thanks for giving the precise date in order to avoid any confusion.
>Appreciated.
trying to mislead you. But, by pointing you instead to the authoritative
source of the information you seek, neither error nor deception is
possible.
Judith
Mar 19, 2013, 7:59:07 PM3/19/13
to
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:35:43 +0000, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>>>>Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations of a new
>>>>RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired.
>>>
>>>It is stipulated precisely in the guidelines: "at least 3 months have
>>>passed from the date of the Fast Track notice, or the close of the vote".
>>>
>>>You know when the close of the vote was, so you also know the earliest that
>>>a new RFD can be published. At least, you do if you understand how to use a
>>>calendar.
>>>
>>>Mark
>>
>>
>>Many thanks for giving the precise date in order to avoid any confusion.
>>Appreciated.
>
>Indeed. Had I merely given you a date, you may have thought me mistaken, or
>trying to mislead you. But, by pointing you instead to the authoritative
>source of the information you seek, neither error nor deception is
>possible.
>
>Mark
It is of course a pity that a member of the committee could not just answer the
question without trying to demonstrate that they are a smart arse.
Could you perhaps tell me if a month is a calendar month or 28 days or 30 days?
If you had actually given me a date I would have accepted it. That was the
reason for asking - I was not intending to set a trap for smart arses; but it
seems to have had that effect.
(Any reason why you snipped the "are you a christian" question? - it was quite
relevant as I just wondered if you were following the christian ethos in
being unhelpful with your attempt at a smart arse answer)
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>>>>Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations of a new
>>>>RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired.
>>>
>>>It is stipulated precisely in the guidelines: "at least 3 months have
>>>passed from the date of the Fast Track notice, or the close of the vote".
>>>
>>>You know when the close of the vote was, so you also know the earliest that
>>>a new RFD can be published. At least, you do if you understand how to use a
>>>calendar.
>>>
>>>Mark
>>
>>
>>Many thanks for giving the precise date in order to avoid any confusion.
>>Appreciated.
>
>Indeed. Had I merely given you a date, you may have thought me mistaken, or
>trying to mislead you. But, by pointing you instead to the authoritative
>source of the information you seek, neither error nor deception is
>possible.
>
>Mark
question without trying to demonstrate that they are a smart arse.
Could you perhaps tell me if a month is a calendar month or 28 days or 30 days?
If you had actually given me a date I would have accepted it. That was the
reason for asking - I was not intending to set a trap for smart arses; but it
seems to have had that effect.
(Any reason why you snipped the "are you a christian" question? - it was quite
relevant as I just wondered if you were following the christian ethos in
being unhelpful with your attempt at a smart arse answer)
Mark Goodge
Mar 20, 2013, 4:04:06 AM3/20/13
to
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 23:59:07 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:35:43 +0000, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>>>Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations of a new
>>>>>RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired.
>>>>
>>>>It is stipulated precisely in the guidelines: "at least 3 months have
>>>>passed from the date of the Fast Track notice, or the close of the vote".
>>>>
>>>>You know when the close of the vote was, so you also know the earliest that
>>>>a new RFD can be published. At least, you do if you understand how to use a
>>>>calendar.
>>>>
>>>>Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>Many thanks for giving the precise date in order to avoid any confusion.
>>>Appreciated.
>>
>>Indeed. Had I merely given you a date, you may have thought me mistaken, or
>>trying to mislead you. But, by pointing you instead to the authoritative
>>source of the information you seek, neither error nor deception is
>
days.
>If you had actually given me a date I would have accepted it. That was the
>reason for asking - I was not intending to set a trap for smart arses; but it
>seems to have had that effect.
The other reason I didn't give a date is because, without checking back to
see when the closing date of the vote was, I don't actually know it either.
And I see no reason to make that effort on your behalf when you are
perfectly capable of making it yourself.
>(Any reason why you snipped the "are you a christian" question? - it was quite
>relevant as I just wondered if you were following the christian ethos in
>being unhelpful with your attempt at a smart arse answer)
Proverbs 26:4
typed:
>On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:35:43 +0000, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>>>Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations of a new
>>>>>RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired.
>>>>
>>>>It is stipulated precisely in the guidelines: "at least 3 months have
>>>>passed from the date of the Fast Track notice, or the close of the vote".
>>>>
>>>>You know when the close of the vote was, so you also know the earliest that
>>>>a new RFD can be published. At least, you do if you understand how to use a
>>>>calendar.
>>>>
>>>>Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>Many thanks for giving the precise date in order to avoid any confusion.
>>>Appreciated.
>>
>>Indeed. Had I merely given you a date, you may have thought me mistaken, or
>>trying to mislead you. But, by pointing you instead to the authoritative
>>source of the information you seek, neither error nor deception is
>
>It is of course a pity that a member of the committee could not just answer the
>question without trying to demonstrate that they are a smart arse.
>
>Could you perhaps tell me if a month is a calendar month or 28 days or 30 days?
It means exactly what it says. If it had meant days, it would have said
>question without trying to demonstrate that they are a smart arse.
>
>Could you perhaps tell me if a month is a calendar month or 28 days or 30 days?
days.
>If you had actually given me a date I would have accepted it. That was the
>reason for asking - I was not intending to set a trap for smart arses; but it
>seems to have had that effect.
see when the closing date of the vote was, I don't actually know it either.
And I see no reason to make that effort on your behalf when you are
perfectly capable of making it yourself.
>(Any reason why you snipped the "are you a christian" question? - it was quite
>relevant as I just wondered if you were following the christian ethos in
>being unhelpful with your attempt at a smart arse answer)
Paul Cummins
Mar 20, 2013, 4:52:00 AM3/20/13
to
In article <k3uhk8pd3b0tb9253...@4ax.com>,
on 15 May.
That is:
> 3 months
...
> from the date of
...
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk (Judith) wrote:
> It is of course a pity that a member of the committee could not
> just answer the
> question without trying to demonstrate that they are a smart
> arse.
If I were considering a new RFD, I'd be looking at mailing it to Control
> It is of course a pity that a member of the committee could not
> just answer the
> question without trying to demonstrate that they are a smart
> arse.
on 15 May.
That is:
> 3 months
...
> from the date of
...
> the close of the vote
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
URA Monitor
Mar 20, 2013, 5:29:14 AM3/20/13
to
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:52 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
> If I were considering a new RFD, I'd be looking at mailing it to
Control
> on 15 May.
Hmm.
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
> If I were considering a new RFD, I'd be looking at mailing it to
Control
> on 15 May.
What happens if two RFDs dealing with the same topic arrive at the
inbox at the stroke of the midnight hour?
First in the box first out of the gate? It's the simplest method,
and better yet, extensible (though I am sure that it is only
vanishingly small possibility that more than two would so coincide).
Percy Picacity
Mar 20, 2013, 5:32:27 AM3/20/13
to
On 2013-03-20 08:52:00 +0000, Paul Cummins said:
> In article <k3uhk8pd3b0tb9253...@4ax.com>,
> jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk (Judith) wrote:
>
>> It is of course a pity that a member of the committee could not
>> just answer the
>> question without trying to demonstrate that they are a smart
>> arse.
>
> If I were considering a new RFD, I'd be looking at mailing it to Control
> on 15 May.
>
> That is:
>
>> 3 months
> ...
>> from the date of
> ...
>> the close of the vote
Here is one for the guideline experts. If Control receives several
> In article <k3uhk8pd3b0tb9253...@4ax.com>,
> jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk (Judith) wrote:
>
>> It is of course a pity that a member of the committee could not
>> just answer the
>> question without trying to demonstrate that they are a smart
>> arse.
>
> If I were considering a new RFD, I'd be looking at mailing it to Control
> on 15 May.
>
> That is:
>
>> 3 months
> ...
>> from the date of
> ...
>> the close of the vote
RFDs on the same day, does he have to accept the first one he receives?
Is it the time of sending or of receipt that counts? Must one
received/sent 1 second early be rejected? What is the time of sending
decided by, the client or a mail server?
Or must we be reasonable - a hard test indeed?
--
Percy Picacity
Tony
Mar 20, 2013, 5:35:02 AM3/20/13
to
asking.
"Only one RFD on any particular subject should be allowed at any one time.
The first valid RFD received by con...@usenet.org.uk should be published,
and all others rejected. In cases of doubt, the Committee shall adjudicate
as to whether two RFDs overlap sufficiently to warrant one being rejected."
i.e. first come, first served.
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]
Percy Picacity
Mar 20, 2013, 5:36:06 AM3/20/13
to
from the exact time of the close of the vote: or even midnight the
night before the close of the vote?
--
Percy Picacity
URA Monitor
Mar 20, 2013, 5:44:57 AM3/20/13
to
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:35:02 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>
wrote:
> "Only one RFD on any particular subject should be allowed at any
one time.
> The first valid RFD received by con...@usenet.org.uk should be
published,
> and all others rejected. In cases of doubt, the Committee shall
adjudicate
> as to whether two RFDs overlap sufficiently to warrant one being
rejected."
> i.e. first come, first served.
Oh goody. Races.
You know, I noticed a funny thing yesterday, setting up
mail-fowarding and watching it on two different machines. When I
emailed myself on machine A that system had it in the inbox a
noticeable time before machine B. It only makes sense though as it
ought to be a short-cut, in a sense...
wrote:
> "Only one RFD on any particular subject should be allowed at any
one time.
> The first valid RFD received by con...@usenet.org.uk should be
published,
> and all others rejected. In cases of doubt, the Committee shall
adjudicate
> as to whether two RFDs overlap sufficiently to warrant one being
rejected."
> i.e. first come, first served.
You know, I noticed a funny thing yesterday, setting up
mail-fowarding and watching it on two different machines. When I
emailed myself on machine A that system had it in the inbox a
noticeable time before machine B. It only makes sense though as it
ought to be a short-cut, in a sense...
URA Monitor
Mar 20, 2013, 6:38:13 AM3/20/13
to
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:04:06 +0000, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> >(Any reason why you snipped the "are you a christian" question? -
it was quite
> >relevant as I just wondered if you were following the christian
ethos in
> >being unhelpful with your attempt at a smart arse answer)
> Proverbs 26:4
(fx: sound of troll muttering as it searches vainly for "Fuckwit" in
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> >(Any reason why you snipped the "are you a christian" question? -
it was quite
> >relevant as I just wondered if you were following the christian
ethos in
> >being unhelpful with your attempt at a smart arse answer)
> Proverbs 26:4
the concordance.)
Steve Firth
Mar 20, 2013, 6:46:03 AM3/20/13
to
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 23:59:07 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
[snip]
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 23:59:07 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>> (Any reason why you snipped the "are you a christian" question? - it was quite
>> relevant as I just wondered if you were following the christian ethos in
>> being unhelpful with your attempt at a smart arse answer)
>
> Proverbs 26:4
and Luke 10:37 (last sentence).
Always used to keep that handy for the Jehovah's Witnesses just for the
pleasure of watching them riffle through the pages until understanding
dawned.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Tony
Mar 20, 2013, 7:07:35 AM3/20/13
to
Oh no, that didn't. I have no idea what you're talking about (and since
you're hiding your regular posting identity, I have no reason to care
either).
Jon Ribbens
Mar 20, 2013, 7:26:25 AM3/20/13
to
On 2013-03-20, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
> In uk.net.news.management, URA Monitor <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>You know, I noticed a funny thing yesterday, setting up
>>mail-fowarding and watching it on two different machines. When I
>>emailed myself on machine A that system had it in the inbox a
>>noticeable time before machine B. It only makes sense though as it
>>ought to be a short-cut, in a sense...
>
> Speaking of making sense.
>
> Oh no, that didn't. I have no idea what you're talking about (and since
> you're hiding your regular posting identity, I have no reason to care
> either).
Nothing "URA Monitor" has said has appeared to make any sense.
> In uk.net.news.management, URA Monitor <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>You know, I noticed a funny thing yesterday, setting up
>>mail-fowarding and watching it on two different machines. When I
>>emailed myself on machine A that system had it in the inbox a
>>noticeable time before machine B. It only makes sense though as it
>>ought to be a short-cut, in a sense...
>
> Speaking of making sense.
>
> Oh no, that didn't. I have no idea what you're talking about (and since
> you're hiding your regular posting identity, I have no reason to care
> either).
They seem to specialise in gibberish.
Paul Cummins
Mar 20, 2013, 10:06:00 AM3/20/13
to
In article
<690986064385468647.649345%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org>
more appropriate.
In the vernacular, of course...
<690986064385468647.649345%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org>
, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> I've generally found that the best advice to give Judith is Matthew
> 27:5 and Luke 10:37 (last sentence).
I would have thought that the first phrase of Genesis 1:28 would ave been
> I've generally found that the best advice to give Judith is Matthew
> 27:5 and Luke 10:37 (last sentence).
more appropriate.
In the vernacular, of course...
Mark Goodge
Mar 20, 2013, 1:33:39 PM3/20/13
to
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:32:27 +0000, Percy Picacity put finger to keyboard
and typed:
The guidelines say that the first received is the first in the queue.
That makes sense, anwyay, as using the first sent could be problematic if
it was actually significantly delayed in transit and didn't arrive until
after another one had been both received and published.
and typed:
That makes sense, anwyay, as using the first sent could be problematic if
it was actually significantly delayed in transit and didn't arrive until
after another one had been both received and published.
Mark Goodge
Mar 20, 2013, 1:37:25 PM3/20/13
to
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:36:06 +0000, Percy Picacity put finger to keyboard
and typed:
The close of the vote is the end of the last day for voting. That is, the
close of the vote is at 23:59:59.999999999. So the earliest that a new RFD
can be considered is 00:00:00 on the following day.
Given that Control is neither expected nor required to stay up past
midnight just in case an RFD comes in, I would expect that he will check
his mailbox in the morning and, if there are any RFDs which have arrived
after midnight, post the first one which is valid.
and typed:
close of the vote is at 23:59:59.999999999. So the earliest that a new RFD
can be considered is 00:00:00 on the following day.
Given that Control is neither expected nor required to stay up past
midnight just in case an RFD comes in, I would expect that he will check
his mailbox in the morning and, if there are any RFDs which have arrived
after midnight, post the first one which is valid.
Dr J R Stockton
Mar 20, 2013, 6:31:02 PM3/20/13
to
In uk.net.news.management message <5sghk8lgstjt2iafiu9hm5j92lh047kkpo@ne
ws.markshouse.net>, Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:01:55, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> posted:
>On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:54:06 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>
>>
>>Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations of a new
>>RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired.
>
>It is stipulated precisely in the guidelines: "at least 3 months have
>passed from the date of the Fast Track notice, or the close of the vote".
That is not precise, since the commencement date may be February 29th.
a number of weeks, or a number of days, should have been chosen. One
may probably ignore, but should not forget, the effects of Summer Time.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. E-mail, see Home Page. Turnpike v6.05.
Website <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc. : <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see in 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
ws.markshouse.net>, Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:01:55, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> posted:
>On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:54:06 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>
>>
>>Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations of a new
>>RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired.
>
>It is stipulated precisely in the guidelines: "at least 3 months have
>passed from the date of the Fast Track notice, or the close of the vote".
a number of weeks, or a number of days, should have been chosen. One
may probably ignore, but should not forget, the effects of Summer Time.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. E-mail, see Home Page. Turnpike v6.05.
Website <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc. : <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see in 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
Mark Goodge
Mar 21, 2013, 4:04:23 AM3/21/13
to
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:31:02 +0000, Dr J R Stockton put finger to keyboard
means a calendar month, and takes account of a leap year when relevant.
and typed:
>In uk.net.news.management message <5sghk8lgstjt2iafiu9hm5j92lh047kkpo@ne
>ws.markshouse.net>, Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:01:55, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> posted:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:54:06 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
>>typed:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations of a new
>>>RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired.
>>
>>It is stipulated precisely in the guidelines: "at least 3 months have
>>passed from the date of the Fast Track notice, or the close of the vote".
>
>That is not precise, since the commencement date may be February 29th.
>a number of weeks, or a number of days, should have been chosen. One
>may probably ignore, but should not forget, the effects of Summer Time.
There's a general principle in law that, unless otherwise stated, a month
>In uk.net.news.management message <5sghk8lgstjt2iafiu9hm5j92lh047kkpo@ne
>ws.markshouse.net>, Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:01:55, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> posted:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:54:06 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
>>typed:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations of a new
>>>RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired.
>>
>>It is stipulated precisely in the guidelines: "at least 3 months have
>>passed from the date of the Fast Track notice, or the close of the vote".
>
>That is not precise, since the commencement date may be February 29th.
>a number of weeks, or a number of days, should have been chosen. One
>may probably ignore, but should not forget, the effects of Summer Time.
means a calendar month, and takes account of a leap year when relevant.
Judith
Mar 21, 2013, 5:03:38 AM3/21/13
to
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:04:06 +0000, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>>Could you perhaps tell me if a month is a calendar month or 28 days or 30 days?
>
>It means exactly what it says. If it had meant days, it would have said
>days.
Thanks fort the clarification. Here's some for you:
OED:
a period of time between the same dates in successive calendar months
a period of 28 days or four weeks.
Could I ask you as a member of the committee - which you will be applying
please?
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>>Could you perhaps tell me if a month is a calendar month or 28 days or 30 days?
>
>It means exactly what it says. If it had meant days, it would have said
>days.
OED:
a period of time between the same dates in successive calendar months
a period of 28 days or four weeks.
Could I ask you as a member of the committee - which you will be applying
please?
Ian Clifton
Mar 21, 2013, 6:44:02 AM3/21/13
to
Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
[...]
> OED:
>
> a period of time between the same dates in successive calendar months
> a period of 28 days or four weeks.
>
> Could I ask you as a member of the committee - which you will be applying
> please?
Propitiate my curiosity: why does the difference matter?
--
Ian ◎
[...]
> OED:
>
> a period of time between the same dates in successive calendar months
> a period of 28 days or four weeks.
>
> Could I ask you as a member of the committee - which you will be applying
> please?
--
Ian ◎
URA Monitor
Mar 21, 2013, 7:36:10 AM3/21/13
to
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:44:02 +0000, Ian Clifton
<ian.c...@chem.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Could I ask you as a member of the committee - which you will be
applying
> > please?
> Propitiate my curiosity: why does the difference matter?
An unscrupulous paerson might be thinking that there might be two
<ian.c...@chem.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Could I ask you as a member of the committee - which you will be
applying
> > please?
> Propitiate my curiosity: why does the difference matter?
(for trolls read: MANY!) rival RFDs - in the sense of dealing with
the same matter - in the pipe, and that as
a) the first one is defined as the first to arrive at the inbox after
a certain point in time;
b) duplicate copies of the first one would be rejected;
c) email is a transport system with not only some significant latency
but worse, *variable* latency;
the best way to ensure that a particular RFD was the first one would
be to flood the inbox with a few thousand copies of it starting a
short period preceeding the expected time of import. One would not
want to *fill* said inbox (or at least not until after the time), as
then the variance in latency gets kicked into the asteroid belt, so
estimating the capacity of the inbox and the other parameters
previously described is important...
...but...
...of *paramount* importance is knowing the exact time the inbox is
"open", so to speak.
(A mail account, as I have previously pointed out, on a system close
to the system hosting the inbox, would reduce some of those
parameters to perhaps manageable values - but then being the person
who controls said inbox and hence knows exactly the time-of-opening
would be of inestimable value for such a scheme).
Though this is a trick which could/should only work once because one
bitten the inbox-owner would/should probably take steps to prevent
such an attack. Whether this is be achieved through technical or
procedural changes is not my concern, except to point out that as far
as the current stated system is described, a successful such attack
does not seem to be challengable on procedural grounds.
Judith
Mar 21, 2013, 7:44:56 AM3/21/13
to
cycles - I did not ask that question - I was hoping that one of the committee
would have said something like "we will accept them any time after the 17th
May" or whatever. That would have been much too easy - they are probably all
busy doing other important committee things.
It was a very reasonable question over which one member of the committee just
had to play the smart arse.
Sara
Mar 21, 2013, 8:47:46 AM3/21/13
to
In article <7fslk81dtn4ff20b1...@4ax.com>,
Possibly because you post in an aggressive manner as though they are
your junior staff and you have every right to get them to jump through
the hoops you can't be bothered to.
--
Sara
cats cats cats cats cats
your junior staff and you have every right to get them to jump through
the hoops you can't be bothered to.
--
Sara
cats cats cats cats cats
Jon Ribbens
Mar 21, 2013, 8:49:50 AM3/21/13
to
On 2013-03-21, URA Monitor <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> the best way to ensure that a particular RFD was the first one would
> be to flood the inbox with a few thousand copies of it starting a
> short period preceeding the expected time of import.
It seems to me that Control would be entirely within their rights to
> the best way to ensure that a particular RFD was the first one would
> be to flood the inbox with a few thousand copies of it starting a
> short period preceeding the expected time of import.
treat such emails as a denial of service attack rather than an RFD
request and to bin them all unopened.
Judith
Mar 21, 2013, 9:10:55 AM3/21/13
to
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:47:46 +0000, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Possibly because you post in an aggressive manner as though they are
>your junior staff and you have every right to get them to jump through
>the hoops you can't be bothered to.
Which particular part did you find aggressive:
>Possibly because you post in an aggressive manner as though they are
>your junior staff and you have every right to get them to jump through
>the hoops you can't be bothered to.
"Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations of a new
RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired."
suggest being more sycophantic: it seems to work for you.
Jon Ribbens
Mar 21, 2013, 9:34:26 AM3/21/13
to
On 2013-03-21, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:47:46 +0000, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>Possibly because you post in an aggressive manner as though they are
>>your junior staff and you have every right to get them to jump through
>>the hoops you can't be bothered to.
>
> Which particular part did you find aggressive:
You are never anything but aggressive.
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:47:46 +0000, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>Possibly because you post in an aggressive manner as though they are
>>your junior staff and you have every right to get them to jump through
>>the hoops you can't be bothered to.
>
> Which particular part did you find aggressive:
kat
Mar 21, 2013, 9:44:26 AM3/21/13
to
aggressive. Not that I cared, because I couldn't answer your original
question, being several thousand miles from my home computer, and being on
holiday I wasn't going to spend time searching for dates.
--
kat >^..^<
Judith
Mar 21, 2013, 9:54:31 AM3/21/13
to
not all be on hols at the same time
It is a pity that Mark (who had time to start an argument) could not just have
given the date: much too easy.
Judith
Mar 21, 2013, 9:55:32 AM3/21/13
to
Mark Goodge
Mar 21, 2013, 1:50:46 PM3/21/13
to
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:54:31 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
typed:
As I said: I didn't give the date because I didn't know the actual date, as
that would require looking up the closing date of the CFV - which I do not
happen to have memorised. So, instead, I stated what I do know: the method
of determining the date. If you genuinely find making the actual
calculation too difficult, then say so and someone might be sympathetic
enough to your plight to help you out. But, as it is, you appear to be
complaining that nobody is helping you when you simply can't be arsed to do
any thinking yourself. In which case, frankly, I can't be arsed to care.
typed:
that would require looking up the closing date of the CFV - which I do not
happen to have memorised. So, instead, I stated what I do know: the method
of determining the date. If you genuinely find making the actual
calculation too difficult, then say so and someone might be sympathetic
enough to your plight to help you out. But, as it is, you appear to be
complaining that nobody is helping you when you simply can't be arsed to do
any thinking yourself. In which case, frankly, I can't be arsed to care.
Judith
Mar 21, 2013, 2:43:45 PM3/21/13
to
Dr J R Stockton
Mar 21, 2013, 5:52:31 PM3/21/13
to
In uk.net.news.management message <690986064385468647.649345%steve%-mall
oc.c...@news.eternal-september.org>, Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:46:03, Steve
Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> posted:
You should, I think, append John 13:27.
See <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/quotings.htm> : #Alfonso for
cosmologists, for example. But #ACC seems only half correct.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk DOS 3.3, 6.20; WinXP.
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links.
PAS EXE TXT ZIP via <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/00index.htm>
My DOS <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/batfiles.htm> - also batprogs.htm.
oc.c...@news.eternal-september.org>, Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:46:03, Steve
Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> posted:
See <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/quotings.htm> : #Alfonso for
cosmologists, for example. But #ACC seems only half correct.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk DOS 3.3, 6.20; WinXP.
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links.
PAS EXE TXT ZIP via <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/00index.htm>
My DOS <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/batfiles.htm> - also batprogs.htm.
M Wicks
Mar 22, 2013, 7:30:48 AM3/22/13
to
On Mar 20, 8:04 am, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
> ><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
> ><snip>
> >>>>a new RFD can be published. At least, you do if you understand how to use a
> >>>>calendar.
>
> >>>>Mark
>
> >>>Many thanks for giving the precise date in order to avoid any confusion.
> >>>Appreciated.
>
> >>Indeed. Had I merely given you a date, you may have thought me mistaken, or
> >>trying to mislead you. But, by pointing you instead to the authoritative
> >>source of the information you seek, neither error nor deception is
> >reason for asking - I was not intending to set a trap for smart arses; but it
> >seems to have had that effect.
>
> The other reason I didn't give a date is because, without checking back to
> see when the closing date of the vote was, I don't actually know it either.
> And I see no reason to make that effort on your behalf when you are
> perfectly capable of making it yourself.
everything that is in Proverbs? Or just the bits that appeal to you
(you know, like with Leviticus)?
wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 23:59:07 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:35:43 +0000, Mark Goodge
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 23:59:07 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
> ><snip>
>
> >>>>>Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations of a new
> >>>>>RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired.
>
> >>>>>Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations of a new
> >>>>>RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired.
>
> >>>>It is stipulated precisely in the guidelines: "at least 3 months have
> >>>>passed from the date of the Fast Track notice, or the close of the vote".
>
> >>>>You know when the close of the vote was, so you also know the earliest that
> >>>>passed from the date of the Fast Track notice, or the close of the vote".
>
> >>>>a new RFD can be published. At least, you do if you understand how to use a
> >>>>calendar.
>
> >>>>Mark
>
> >>>Many thanks for giving the precise date in order to avoid any confusion.
> >>>Appreciated.
>
> >>Indeed. Had I merely given you a date, you may have thought me mistaken, or
> >>trying to mislead you. But, by pointing you instead to the authoritative
> >>source of the information you seek, neither error nor deception is
>
> >It is of course a pity that a member of the committee could not just answer the
> >question without trying to demonstrate that they are a smart arse.
>
> >It is of course a pity that a member of the committee could not just answer the
> >question without trying to demonstrate that they are a smart arse.
>
> >Could you perhaps tell me if a month is a calendar month or 28 days or 30 days?
>
> It means exactly what it says. If it had meant days, it would have said
> days.
>
> >If you had actually given me a date I would have accepted it. That was the
>
> It means exactly what it says. If it had meant days, it would have said
> days.
>
> >reason for asking - I was not intending to set a trap for smart arses; but it
> >seems to have had that effect.
>
> The other reason I didn't give a date is because, without checking back to
> see when the closing date of the vote was, I don't actually know it either.
> And I see no reason to make that effort on your behalf when you are
> perfectly capable of making it yourself.
>
> >(Any reason why you snipped the "are you a christian" question? - it was quite
> >relevant as I just wondered if you were following the christian ethos in
> >being unhelpful with your attempt at a smart arse answer)
>
> Proverbs 26:4
Great. Thanks for that. About your level. Do you subscribe to
> >(Any reason why you snipped the "are you a christian" question? - it was quite
> >relevant as I just wondered if you were following the christian ethos in
> >being unhelpful with your attempt at a smart arse answer)
>
> Proverbs 26:4
everything that is in Proverbs? Or just the bits that appeal to you
(you know, like with Leviticus)?
Dr J R Stockton
Mar 22, 2013, 5:26:44 PM3/22/13
to
In uk.net.news.management message <plflk8paoej2ksa7vrv7a8vh68sl9fno8n@ne
ws.markshouse.net>, Thu, 21 Mar 2013 08:04:23, Mark Goodge
one deals, in British Law, with a number of months leading to a month
which does not contain the starting day-of-month.
Does one month from January 31st (the Last of January) go to the Last of
February, to the First of March, or (as JavaScript does) to the 31st day
of a stretched February, which could be as late as March 3rd? Opinions,
especially in present company, are likely to differ.
That is why the interval should have been specified in a manner
requiring at most knowledge of the lengths of the months.
Of course, there is another easy solution; let Committee and Voting
arrange that the starting day is never later than the 28th of the month.
ws.markshouse.net>, Thu, 21 Mar 2013 08:04:23, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> posted:
>On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:31:02 +0000, Dr J R Stockton put finger to keyboard
>and typed:
>
>>In uk.net.news.management message <5sghk8lgstjt2iafiu9hm5j92lh047kkpo@ne
>>ws.markshouse.net>, Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:01:55, Mark Goodge
>><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> posted:
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:54:06 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
>>>typed:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations
>>>>of a new
>>>>RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired.
>>>
>>>It is stipulated precisely in the guidelines: "at least 3 months have
>>>passed from the date of the Fast Track notice, or the close of the vote".
>>
>>That is not precise, since the commencement date may be February 29th.
>>a number of weeks, or a number of days, should have been chosen. One
>>may probably ignore, but should not forget, the effects of Summer Time.
>
>There's a general principle in law that, unless otherwise stated, a month
>means a calendar month, and takes account of a leap year when relevant.
I agree with the calendar month; but it is not well-known exactly how
>On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:31:02 +0000, Dr J R Stockton put finger to keyboard
>and typed:
>
>>In uk.net.news.management message <5sghk8lgstjt2iafiu9hm5j92lh047kkpo@ne
>>ws.markshouse.net>, Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:01:55, Mark Goodge
>><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> posted:
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:54:06 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
>>>typed:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations
>>>>of a new
>>>>RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired.
>>>
>>>It is stipulated precisely in the guidelines: "at least 3 months have
>>>passed from the date of the Fast Track notice, or the close of the vote".
>>
>>That is not precise, since the commencement date may be February 29th.
>>a number of weeks, or a number of days, should have been chosen. One
>>may probably ignore, but should not forget, the effects of Summer Time.
>
>There's a general principle in law that, unless otherwise stated, a month
>means a calendar month, and takes account of a leap year when relevant.
one deals, in British Law, with a number of months leading to a month
which does not contain the starting day-of-month.
Does one month from January 31st (the Last of January) go to the Last of
February, to the First of March, or (as JavaScript does) to the 31st day
of a stretched February, which could be as late as March 3rd? Opinions,
especially in present company, are likely to differ.
That is why the interval should have been specified in a manner
requiring at most knowledge of the lengths of the months.
Of course, there is another easy solution; let Committee and Voting
arrange that the starting day is never later than the 28th of the month.
Mike Fleming
Mar 22, 2013, 8:59:27 PM3/22/13
to
In article <og1mk8td6fir62svj...@4ax.com>, Judith
hadn't given you an answer that you could directly nitpick at.
--
Mike Fleming
<jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:47:46 +0000, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Possibly because you post in an aggressive manner as though they are
> >your junior staff and you have every right to get them to jump through
> >the hoops you can't be bothered to.
>
> Which particular part did you find aggressive:
>
> "Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations of a new
> RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired."
The bit after that, where you started having a go at Mark because he
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:47:46 +0000, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Possibly because you post in an aggressive manner as though they are
> >your junior staff and you have every right to get them to jump through
> >the hoops you can't be bothered to.
>
> Which particular part did you find aggressive:
>
> "Could the committee say what is the date after which the limitations of a new
> RFD (as a result of the last one) will have expired."
hadn't given you an answer that you could directly nitpick at.
--
Mike Fleming
Mark Goodge
Mar 23, 2013, 6:33:22 AM3/23/13
to
On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 00:59:27 +0000, Mike Fleming put finger to keyboard and
typed:
I should also add that if anyone wants a response from "The Committee" then
the only way to get that is to email the committee. Individual members of
the committee post here, but, other than when explicitly stated, do so as
individuals rather than on behalf of the committee.
typed:
the only way to get that is to email the committee. Individual members of
the committee post here, but, other than when explicitly stated, do so as
individuals rather than on behalf of the committee.
Judith
Mar 23, 2013, 11:29:34 AM3/23/13
to
including the comment on whether I could understand a calendar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You know when the close of the vote was, so you also know the earliest that
a new RFD can be published. At least, you do if you understand how to use a
calendar."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a new RFD can be published. At least, you do if you understand how to use a
calendar."
And of course my response to that was outrageous, wasn't it:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks for giving the precise date in order to avoid any confusion.
Appreciated.
Are you perhaps a christian?
Appreciated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could he let go? No he couldn't.
Have you criticised him at all? No you haven't?
You are as balanced as he is. Are you perhaps a christian?
Mike Fleming
Mar 24, 2013, 7:45:45 PM3/24/13
to
In article <jiirk81ts3rvg4v9s...@4ax.com>, Judith
> And of course my response to that was outrageous, wasn't it:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Many thanks for giving the precise date in order to avoid any confusion.
> Appreciated.
> Are you perhaps a christian?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dripping with sarcasm.
> Could he let go? No he couldn't.
> Have you criticised him at all? No you haven't?
That should be a full stop after "haven't".
> You are as balanced as he is. Are you perhaps a christian?
You asked which particular posting of yours was agressive and I
pointed it out. You didn't ask for any analysis of Mark's postings. I
replied to the question that you posed. Had you desired a diffferent
answer, you should have asked a different question.
You are rather tedious, aren't you? Are you actually Wm.. in disguise?
--
Mike Fleming
<jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 00:59:27 +0000, Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >The bit after that, where you started having a go at Mark because he
> >hadn't given you an answer that you could directly nitpick at.
>
>
> Oh you mean when I responded to his very considerate reply to me (below)
> including the comment on whether I could understand a calendar.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "You know when the close of the vote was, so you also know the earliest that
> a new RFD can be published. At least, you do if you understand how to use a
> calendar."
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A slight dig in the second part.
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 00:59:27 +0000, Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >The bit after that, where you started having a go at Mark because he
> >hadn't given you an answer that you could directly nitpick at.
>
>
> Oh you mean when I responded to his very considerate reply to me (below)
> including the comment on whether I could understand a calendar.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "You know when the close of the vote was, so you also know the earliest that
> a new RFD can be published. At least, you do if you understand how to use a
> calendar."
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> And of course my response to that was outrageous, wasn't it:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Many thanks for giving the precise date in order to avoid any confusion.
> Appreciated.
> Are you perhaps a christian?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Could he let go? No he couldn't.
> Have you criticised him at all? No you haven't?
> You are as balanced as he is. Are you perhaps a christian?
pointed it out. You didn't ask for any analysis of Mark's postings. I
replied to the question that you posed. Had you desired a diffferent
answer, you should have asked a different question.
You are rather tedious, aren't you? Are you actually Wm.. in disguise?
--
Mike Fleming
Judith
Mar 25, 2013, 5:45:55 AM3/25/13
to
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:45:45 +0000, Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <jiirk81ts3rvg4v9s...@4ax.com>, Judith
><jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 00:59:27 +0000, Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >The bit after that, where you started having a go at Mark because he
>> >hadn't given you an answer that you could directly nitpick at.
>>
>>
>> Oh you mean when I responded to his very considerate reply to me (below)
>> including the comment on whether I could understand a calendar.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> "You know when the close of the vote was, so you also know the earliest that
>> a new RFD can be published. At least, you do if you understand how to use a
>> calendar."
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>A slight dig in the second part.
>
>> And of course my response to that was outrageous, wasn't it:
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Many thanks for giving the precise date in order to avoid any confusion.
>> Appreciated.
>> Are you perhaps a christian?
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Dripping with sarcasm.
>
>> Could he let go? No he couldn't.
>> Have you criticised him at all? No you haven't?
>
>That should be a full stop after "haven't".
And that is an excellent example of the total worth of your contribution to the
>In article <jiirk81ts3rvg4v9s...@4ax.com>, Judith
><jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 00:59:27 +0000, Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >The bit after that, where you started having a go at Mark because he
>> >hadn't given you an answer that you could directly nitpick at.
>>
>>
>> Oh you mean when I responded to his very considerate reply to me (below)
>> including the comment on whether I could understand a calendar.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> "You know when the close of the vote was, so you also know the earliest that
>> a new RFD can be published. At least, you do if you understand how to use a
>> calendar."
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>A slight dig in the second part.
>
>> And of course my response to that was outrageous, wasn't it:
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Many thanks for giving the precise date in order to avoid any confusion.
>> Appreciated.
>> Are you perhaps a christian?
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Dripping with sarcasm.
>
>> Could he let go? No he couldn't.
>> Have you criticised him at all? No you haven't?
>
>That should be a full stop after "haven't".
thread.
Clive D. W. Feather
Mar 27, 2013, 6:46:28 PM3/27/13
to
In message <p5q8l8QU...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>, Dr J R
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <cl...@davros.org>
Stockton <repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>I agree with the calendar month; but it is not well-known exactly how
>one deals, in British Law, with a number of months leading to a month
>which does not contain the starting day-of-month.
Migotti v Colvill (1879) 4 C.P.D. 233 is perfectly clear.
>I agree with the calendar month; but it is not well-known exactly how
>one deals, in British Law, with a number of months leading to a month
>which does not contain the starting day-of-month.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <cl...@davros.org>
Clive D. W. Feather
Mar 27, 2013, 6:57:35 PM3/27/13
to
In message <pnsjk893puiml5rnb...@news.markshouse.net>,
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>The close of the vote is the end of the last day for voting. That is, the
>close of the vote is at 23:59:59.999999999.
The ISO standard allows you to write this as 24:00:00.
>The close of the vote is the end of the last day for voting. That is, the
>close of the vote is at 23:59:59.999999999.
Percy Picacity
Mar 27, 2013, 7:00:53 PM3/27/13
to
On 2013-03-27 22:46:28 +0000, Clive D. W. Feather said:
> In message <p5q8l8QU...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>, Dr J
> R Stockton <repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> I agree with the calendar month; but it is not well-known exactly how
>> one deals, in British Law, with a number of months leading to a month
>> which does not contain the starting day-of-month.
>
> Migotti v Colvill (1879) 4 C.P.D. 233 is perfectly clear.
OK, well tell the rest of us what it says, then! (Please.)
> In message <p5q8l8QU...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>, Dr J
> R Stockton <repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> I agree with the calendar month; but it is not well-known exactly how
>> one deals, in British Law, with a number of months leading to a month
>> which does not contain the starting day-of-month.
>
> Migotti v Colvill (1879) 4 C.P.D. 233 is perfectly clear.
--
Percy Picacity
Percy Picacity
Mar 27, 2013, 7:08:53 PM3/27/13
to
On 2013-03-27 22:57:35 +0000, Clive D. W. Feather said:
> In message <pnsjk893puiml5rnb...@news.markshouse.net>,
> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> The close of the vote is the end of the last day for voting. That is, the
>> close of the vote is at 23:59:59.999999999.
>
> The ISO standard allows you to write this as 24:00:00.
So 00.00.00 is wrong?
> In message <pnsjk893puiml5rnb...@news.markshouse.net>,
> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> The close of the vote is the end of the last day for voting. That is, the
>> close of the vote is at 23:59:59.999999999.
>
> The ISO standard allows you to write this as 24:00:00.
--
Percy Picacity
Tony
Mar 27, 2013, 9:07:11 PM3/27/13
to
4.2.3 Midnight
The complete representations in basic and extended format for midnight, in
accordance with 4.2.2, shall be expressed in either of the two following
ways:
Basic format Extended format
a) 000000 00:00:00 (the beginning of a calendar day)
b) 240000 24:00:00 (the end of a calendar day)
The representations may have reduced accuracy in accordance with 4.2.2.3 or
may be designated as a time expression in accordance with 4.2.2.5. To
represent midnight the representations may be expanded with a decimal
fraction containing only zeros in accordance with 4.2.2.4.
NOTE 1 Midnight will normally be represented as [00:00] or [24:00].
NOTE 2 The end of one calendar day [24:00] coincides with [00:00] at the
start of the next calendar day, e.g. [24:00] on 12 April 1985 is the same
as [00:00] on 13 April 1985. If there is no association with a date or a
time interval both a) and b) represent the same local time in the 24-hour
timekeeping system.
NOTE 3 The choice of representation a) or b) will depend upon any
association with a date, or a time interval. Representations where [hh]
has the value [24] are only preferred to represent the end of a time
interval in accordance with 4.4 or recurring time interval in accordance
with 4.5.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]
Tony
Mar 27, 2013, 9:12:12 PM3/27/13
to
In uk.net.news.management, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
month was the 31st of something and your ending month only has 30 days),
then backtrack to the end of the month (i.e. 30th). That covers leap years
as well.
Essentially, you just pick the same date, 3 months later, unless you can't
in which case you pick the last date in the month, 3 months later. You
don't count 'days' you just count months.
Clive D. W. Feather
Mar 28, 2013, 3:48:09 AM3/28/13
to
In message <6esj87....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
date, stop. If it's beyond the end of the month, use the last day of the
month.
For example, 2 months after July 31st is September 30th, while 3 months
after June 30th is August 30th.
<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>> I agree with the calendar month; but it is not well-known exactly how
>>> one deals, in British Law, with a number of months leading to a month
>>> which does not contain the starting day-of-month.
>> Migotti v Colvill (1879) 4 C.P.D. 233 is perfectly clear.
>OK, well tell the rest of us what it says, then! (Please.)
Increment the month by the required number. If that gives you a valid
>>> I agree with the calendar month; but it is not well-known exactly how
>>> one deals, in British Law, with a number of months leading to a month
>>> which does not contain the starting day-of-month.
>> Migotti v Colvill (1879) 4 C.P.D. 233 is perfectly clear.
>OK, well tell the rest of us what it says, then! (Please.)
date, stop. If it's beyond the end of the month, use the last day of the
month.
For example, 2 months after July 31st is September 30th, while 3 months
after June 30th is August 30th.
Clive D. W. Feather
Mar 28, 2013, 6:12:57 AM3/28/13
to
In message <niWLjcM5W$URF...@romana.davros.org>, Clive D. W. Feather
<cl...@davros.org> wrote:
>For example, 2 months after July 31st is September 30th, while 3 months
>after June 30th is August 30th.
*2* months after June 30th.
>For example, 2 months after July 31st is September 30th, while 3 months
>after June 30th is August 30th.
Message has been deleted
Jon Ribbens
Mar 28, 2013, 6:44:10 AM3/28/13
to
On 2013-03-28, Clive D. W. Feather <cl...@davros.org> wrote:
> In message <6esj87....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
><k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>>> I agree with the calendar month; but it is not well-known exactly how
>>>> one deals, in British Law, with a number of months leading to a month
>>>> which does not contain the starting day-of-month.
>>> Migotti v Colvill (1879) 4 C.P.D. 233 is perfectly clear.
>>OK, well tell the rest of us what it says, then! (Please.)
>
> Increment the month by the required number. If that gives you a valid
> date, stop. If it's beyond the end of the month, use the last day of the
> month.
The 9th of Fourteenuary, my favourite day of the year ;-)
> In message <6esj87....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
><k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>>> I agree with the calendar month; but it is not well-known exactly how
>>>> one deals, in British Law, with a number of months leading to a month
>>>> which does not contain the starting day-of-month.
>>> Migotti v Colvill (1879) 4 C.P.D. 233 is perfectly clear.
>>OK, well tell the rest of us what it says, then! (Please.)
>
> Increment the month by the required number. If that gives you a valid
> date, stop. If it's beyond the end of the month, use the last day of the
> month.
Adam Funk
Mar 28, 2013, 8:21:53 AM3/28/13
to
Dr J R Stockton
Mar 29, 2013, 6:33:28 PM3/29/13
to
In uk.net.news.management message <rLfY5iLf...@romana.davros.org>,
Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:57:35, Clive D. W. Feather <cl...@davros.org>
posted:
>In message <pnsjk893puiml5rnb...@news.markshouse.net>,
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>The close of the vote is the end of the last day for voting. That is, the
>>close of the vote is at 23:59:59.999999999.
>
>The ISO standard allows you to write this as 24:00:00.
The real need is to establish whether the arrival time must be < the
stated instant, or only needs be <= the stated instant.
It would be unwise to boilerplate 23:59:59.999999999 without stipulating
a check for a Leap Second.
The "That is" sentence is unnecessary and harmful; the previous sentence
should include "UK civil" as a reminder to the more obtuse foreigners
(and maybe some Tunnel staff <g>).
Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:57:35, Clive D. W. Feather <cl...@davros.org>
posted:
>In message <pnsjk893puiml5rnb...@news.markshouse.net>,
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>The close of the vote is the end of the last day for voting. That is, the
>>close of the vote is at 23:59:59.999999999.
>
>The ISO standard allows you to write this as 24:00:00.
stated instant, or only needs be <= the stated instant.
It would be unwise to boilerplate 23:59:59.999999999 without stipulating
a check for a Leap Second.
The "That is" sentence is unnecessary and harmful; the previous sentence
should include "UK civil" as a reminder to the more obtuse foreigners
(and maybe some Tunnel staff <g>).
Dr J R Stockton
Mar 29, 2013, 6:38:47 PM3/29/13
to
In uk.net.news.management message <c7pVVHLE...@romana.davros.org>,
Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:46:28, Clive D. W. Feather <cl...@davros.org>
posted:
>In message <p5q8l8QU...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>, Dr J
>R Stockton <repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>I agree with the calendar month; but it is not well-known exactly how
>>one deals, in British Law, with a number of months leading to a month
>>which does not contain the starting day-of-month.
>
>Migotti v Colvill (1879) 4 C.P.D. 233 is perfectly clear.
But "perfectly clear" is not the same as "well-known", which I chose to
use because it has the intended meaning.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Mail via homepage. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:46:28, Clive D. W. Feather <cl...@davros.org>
posted:
>In message <p5q8l8QU...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>, Dr J
>R Stockton <repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>I agree with the calendar month; but it is not well-known exactly how
>>one deals, in British Law, with a number of months leading to a month
>>which does not contain the starting day-of-month.
>
>Migotti v Colvill (1879) 4 C.P.D. 233 is perfectly clear.
use because it has the intended meaning.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Mail via homepage. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Paul Cummins
Mar 30, 2013, 10:40:00 AM3/30/13
to
In article <DpE2Bjk3...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>,
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid (Dr J R Stockton) wrote:
> But "perfectly clear" is not the same as "well-known", which I
> chose to use because it has the intended meaning.
Ignorance of the law is not defence or excuse.
> But "perfectly clear" is not the same as "well-known", which I
> chose to use because it has the intended meaning.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
Alan LeHun
Mar 30, 2013, 11:08:54 AM3/30/13
to
In article <memo.2013033...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid says...
regards to the submission and approval for publication of an RFD for the
usenet uk.* hierarchy?
Ignorance of the uk.* newsgroup management documents? Well, that would
appear to cover just about everyone if the evidence within this group is
to be taken into consideration.
--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid says...
> > But "perfectly clear" is not the same as "well-known", which I
> > chose to use because it has the intended meaning.
>
> Ignorance of the law is not defence or excuse.
>
And pray tell, what relevance the law, or ignorance thereof, has, with
> > chose to use because it has the intended meaning.
>
> Ignorance of the law is not defence or excuse.
>
regards to the submission and approval for publication of an RFD for the
usenet uk.* hierarchy?
Ignorance of the uk.* newsgroup management documents? Well, that would
appear to cover just about everyone if the evidence within this group is
to be taken into consideration.
--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.
Paul Cummins
Mar 31, 2013, 7:16:00 AM3/31/13
to
In article <MPG.2bc110634...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
used in the documents have the normal legal meaning applied to them in
the case of any dispute.
Given the reference to that specific case by a longstanding and well
respected member of the committee, I think I am correct.
t...@reply.to (Alan LeHun) wrote:
> And pray tell, what relevance the law, or ignorance thereof, has,
> with regards to the submission and approval for publication of an
> RFD for the usenet uk.* hierarchy?
I believe that the committee will agree with my submission that words
> And pray tell, what relevance the law, or ignorance thereof, has,
> with regards to the submission and approval for publication of an
> RFD for the usenet uk.* hierarchy?
used in the documents have the normal legal meaning applied to them in
the case of any dispute.
Given the reference to that specific case by a longstanding and well
respected member of the committee, I think I am correct.
Dr J R Stockton
Apr 2, 2013, 6:12:46 PM4/2/13
to
In uk.net.news.management message <memo.20130331121613.2212C@postmaster.
cix.co.uk>, Sun, 31 Mar 2013 12:16:00, Paul Cummins <usethebl@stedteleph
one.invalid> posted:
>In article <MPG.2bc110634...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
>t...@reply.to (Alan LeHun) wrote:
>
>> And pray tell, what relevance the law, or ignorance thereof, has,
>> with regards to the submission and approval for publication of an
>> RFD for the usenet uk.* hierarchy?
>
>I believe that the committee will agree with my submission that words
>used in the documents have the normal legal meaning applied to them in
>the case of any dispute.
>
>Given the reference to that specific case by a longstanding and well
>respected member of the committee, I think I am correct.
The Committee should use words in accordance with their normal legal
meaning; but they should choose words that will be correctly and fully
understood by the vast majority of those reading them. That will not
necessarily include you.
--
cix.co.uk>, Sun, 31 Mar 2013 12:16:00, Paul Cummins <usethebl@stedteleph
one.invalid> posted:
>In article <MPG.2bc110634...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
>t...@reply.to (Alan LeHun) wrote:
>
>> And pray tell, what relevance the law, or ignorance thereof, has,
>> with regards to the submission and approval for publication of an
>> RFD for the usenet uk.* hierarchy?
>
>I believe that the committee will agree with my submission that words
>used in the documents have the normal legal meaning applied to them in
>the case of any dispute.
>
>Given the reference to that specific case by a longstanding and well
>respected member of the committee, I think I am correct.
meaning; but they should choose words that will be correctly and fully
understood by the vast majority of those reading them. That will not
necessarily include you.
--
Paul Cummins
Apr 3, 2013, 5:23:00 AM4/3/13
to
In article <zmNKShLe...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>,
You are welcome to crawl back under your rock when it gets too hot or
complex for you.
repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid (Dr J R Stockton) wrote:
> The Committee should use words in accordance with their normal legal
> meaning; but they should choose words that will be correctly and
> fully understood by the vast majority of those reading them. That will
> not necessarily include you.
And clearly doesn't include you in the majority of cases.
> meaning; but they should choose words that will be correctly and
> fully understood by the vast majority of those reading them. That will
> not necessarily include you.
You are welcome to crawl back under your rock when it gets too hot or
complex for you.
0 new messages