{R}
Hamish McPhee
careful, planned, and coordinated action, I hope you will bear with me while I
begin this sincere and earnest attempt. And please don't get mad with me if, in
doing so, I must provide a positive, confident, and assertive vision of
humanity's future and our role in it. The first thing I want to bring up is
that no matter how bad you think Richard Ashton's agendas are, I assure you
that they are far, far worse than you think. Last I checked, the reason he
wants to shame Allen's name is that he's totally psychotic. If you believe you
have another explanation for his birdbrained behavior, then please write and
tell me about it. Maybe some day, Richard will finally stop trying to usher in
the beginning of a humourless new era of neocolonialism. Don't hold your
breath, though. Statements like, "He couldn't boss others around if his life
depended on it, which it doesn't" accurately express the feelings of most of us
here. Isn't it odd that dummkopfs, whose disagreeable lifestyle will make
someone the target of a constant, consistent, systematic, sustained campaign of
attacks before you know it, are immune from censure? Why is that? Well, we all
know the answer to that question, don't we? But in case you don't, then you
should note that Richard's meddlesome expositions dismantle organisations by
driving a wedge between the leaders and the rank-and-file members. News of this
deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to lead the way to the
future, not to the past.
The problem with Richard is not that he's immoral. It's that he wants to woo
over unbridled jokers by using tactics such as scapegoating, reductionist and
simplistic solutions, demagoguery, and a conspiracy theory. In effect, we've
all heard him yammer and whine about how he's being scapegoated again, the poor
dear.
Let me go on record as saying that Richard has certainly never given evidence
of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. Although he is only one
turd floating in the moral cesspool that our society has become, I'm sure he
wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on his secret conversations. I once asked
Richard a question -- I am still waiting for an answer. In the meantime, let me
point out that I am not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say
that just because Richard and his trucklers don't like being labelled as
"feeble-minded heavy-metal fans" or "empty-headed bottom-feeders" doesn't mean
the shoe doesn't fit. Richard thinks that we're supposed to shut up and smile
when he says eccentric, rash things. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so.
His ploys reek of scapegoatism. I use the word "reek", because he can't fool
me. I've met clumsy, puerile misogynists before, so I know that separatism is
not merely an attack on our moral fibre. It is also a politically motivated
attack on knowledge.
What, then, does "cinematographical" mean? It means considerably more than any
dictionary is likely to say. Factionalism, in this case, is a tactic tied to a
broader strategy of granting Richard the ability to grant a free ride to the
undeserving. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to
face the more unpleasant realities of life. I believe that he prefers
defamation to dialogue. Deal with it.
Before you declare me fork-tongued, let me assert that frotteurism is
dangerous. His irritable version of it is doubly so. I'll repeat what I've
already said: Richard is always prattling on about how he is merely trying to
make this world a better place.
That's all I have time now to write. If you want to get more insight into
Richard Ashton's mentality, though, then study the details of his allegations.
Try to see the big picture: It will undeniably amaze you. It will take your
breath away.
Hamish
Dave Lear
> As poorly qualified as I am
Now that I can believe.
--
Dave Lear
http://www.dave-lear.co.uk/faqs/
Paul Bolchover
Hamish McPhee <ham...@mc.phee> wrote:
<snip>
Let's see - no posting history on google, cross-posted to
uk.local.yorkshire and uk.people.silver-surfers....
Hello, Allen :-)
Paul
Linz
Unlikely, he died at 4am today.
kat@myself.com kat
And was in hospital long before the "Hamish McPhee" post was sent.
I notice the IP address is one that people would be likely to think confirms
the post as sent by Allen.
--
kat on the laptop
>^..^<
kat
> In uk.net.news.config on Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:09:45 +0100, "kat" <the
> k...@myself.com> wrote:
>
> }I notice the IP address is one that people would be likely to think
> confirms }the post as sent by Allen.
>
> please ?
>
Sorry, it resolves to ntl guildford, just as allen's latest posts did. If
you remember that was the way the Arthur Negus character was trapped. (
Apart from sounding just like him. :-) ) If Allen had been able to post
yesterday I think many of us would have assumed it was him.
--
kat
>^..^<
kat
> In uk.net.news.config on Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:50:02 +0100, "kat"
> <the...@myself.com> wrote:
>
> }
> }Sorry, it resolves to ntl guildford, just as allen's latest posts
> did. If }you remember that was the way the Arthur Negus character
> was trapped. ( }Apart from sounding just like him. :-) ) If Allen had
> been able to post }yesterday I think many of us would have assumed it
> was him.
>
> Yes OK, Hughes never had a fixed IP that identified him specifically.
> I did not know of Hughes' death but I had personally dismissed the
> idea that that insane post was from Hughes.
>
Wasn't really his style, I know.
--
kat
>^..^<
Geoff Berrow
contained the following:
>Wasn't really his style, I know.
I didn't read it, but anything that length is usually old Carstairs.
--
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
Thomas Lee
<the...@myself.com> writes
>If you remember that was the way the Arthur Negus character was
>trapped. ( Apart from sounding just like him. :-) )
Actually, it wasn't how he got caught, but it was certainly an
indicator.
But this is now in the past. Allen and his socks are no more.
In some ways, I shall miss him. I agreed with his point that you can
object without being profane. I'm sure he wasn't all bad. At one point,
early on, I tried to engage him in email but to no avail. Then he
started doing weirder things. But that is now in the past.
>If Allen had been able to post yesterday I think many of us would have
>assumed it was him.
No - I don't think so. It was really not his style at all. I'd certain
that Hamish could not be Allen...
Anyway.
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
Jon Ribbens
>>Wasn't really his style, I know.
>
> I didn't read it, but anything that length is usually old Carstairs.
The posting was, as far as I recall, a standard text, or possibly
auto-generated. I don't remember which.
JulieL
Richard Ashton wrote:
} "kat" <the k...@myself.com> wrote:
}> Richard Ashton scribbled
}>> "kat" <the k...@myself.com> wrote:
}>>> "Linz" <li...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote:
}>>>> Paul Bolchover wrote:
}>>>>> Hello, Allen :-)
}>>>> Unlikely, he died at 4am today.
}>>> And was in hospital long before
}>> Kat you are not making any sense, do you want to be more specific
}> If Allen had been able to post yesterday I think many
}> of us would have assumed it was him
> I did not know of Hughes' death
Richard: I don't think you should hold yourself
responsible for what has happened.
No one can ever _prove_ that your setting up of
www.thelyingcuntallen.co.uk website caused any
stress to Allen, nor that the massive stroke that
lead to his death was due to the stress from
your obscene behaviour towards him.
Don't blame yourself, Richard.
Life's too short.
Mark Goodge
The original McKraken posts were auto-generated using a script similar
to the Dilbert "mission statement generator". It would be relatively
trivial to modify it to produce the Hamish McPhee post. If we start to
see more of them, then that would tend to support the hypothesis that
this is what has been done.
Mark
--
Take part in the Grand Cat Naming Project:
http://www.markshouse.net/cat/
Linz
> Richard Ashton wrote:
>> I did not know of Hughes' death
>
>
> Richard: I don't think you should hold yourself
> responsible for what has happened.
I doubt he will. I wouldn't.
> No one can ever _prove_ that your setting up of
> www.thelyingcuntallen.co.uk website caused any
> stress to Allen, nor that the massive stroke that
> lead to his death was due to the stress from
> your obscene behaviour towards him.
Well, you know, it wasn't one-way traffic. Allen could be an obscene man
himself. He may not have sworn, but he was still capable of seriously
vicious behaviour.
Mike Fleming
<sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> writes:
So that's what happens when you hit the critical mass of killfiles.
Still, I think I'll risk taking him out of mine.
--
Mike Fleming
Cap'n Pugwash
You said it.
So, Hamish
Got all sweaty and dripped the following rubbish all over my screen by
writingt!!!! on Wed, 18 Sep 2002 20:33:09 GMT:
HM> As poorly qualified as I am
Julian Edge
> }Does no one here respect the dead?
>
> I did not respect him when he was alive, I am an atheist, give me any
> logical reason why death should change anything ?
Perhaps because he is obviously no longer able to respond in his own
defence.
There is no point in continuing your vendetta so why bother? Allen certainly
isn't.
Unless you and your side-kick Firth are simply trying to inflame. I thought
you frowned upon that kind of behaviour.
> f/u set
FFS why?
(reset)
Julian Edge
> > Does no one here respect the dead?
>
> What for? They're dead, they don't exist any more.
Don't be so deliberately fucking obtuse.
The respect is for those who are still living that may not share your
perspective.
> We do not worship
> ancestors in this country and even if we did Allen Hughes wouldn't be
> worth a single re. I see no reason why I should hypocritically start
> going on about what a marvellous old character he was like some have
> done, when he was a mean, maleveolent, nasty old hypocrite who got his
> jollies off fucking up other peoples hobbies.
The words 'dignified' and 'silence' mean fuck all to you, either together or
separately.
Suzieflame
>Spider <n...@home.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:08:29 +0100, Richard Ashton
>> <'{R}'@semolina.org> wrote:
>>
>> >:) I don't but you have singlehandedly made me decide to keep the site
>> >:) up and possibly finish it as a memorial to a psychopath.
>>
>> I can't see myself ever creating such a despicable thing but if I had I
>> have no doubts that it would be removed within minutes of my learning that
>> the subject had died.
>
>Right, that makes you a nice person then and Richard is obviously
>horrid.
Thanks for the .sig.
Suzie
--
Suzieflame
"Richard is obviously horrid." Steve "Genius" Firth
Julian Edge
> Now drop it, sunshine.
That's all I'm asking.
And don't fucking patronise me, sunshine.
Derek Reed
If you can't be bothered saying something reasonably nice, then please just don't say anything.
One day, you'll be in the same boat. Try to make sure we don't have to say the same sort of things about you. ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Derek Reed
@()xxxxxxxx[::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message news:1fitriw.gprc57huq3ezN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Spider <n...@home.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:36:46 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >:) JulieL <ju...@SPAM.little.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > >:)
> > >:) > No one can ever _prove_ that your setting up of
> > >:) > www.thelyingcuntallen.co.uk website caused any
> > >:) > stress to Allen, nor that the massive stroke that
> > >:) > lead to his death was due to the stress from
> > >:) > your obscene behaviour towards him.
> > >:)
> > >:) But there's always hope.
> >
> > Does no one here respect the dead?
>
> What for? They're dead, they don't exist any more. We do not worship
> ancestors in this country and even if we did Allen Hughes wouldn't be
> worth a single re. I see no reason why I should hypocritically start
> going on about what a marvellous old character he was like some have
> done, when he was a mean, maleveolent, nasty old hypocrite who got his
> jollies off fucking up other peoples hobbies.
>
> --
> end.
Suzieflame
:
>In uk.net.news.config on Fri, 20 Sep 2002 20:45:43 +0100, "Julian Edge"
><julia...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>}The words 'dignified' and 'silence' mean fuck all to you, either together or
>}separately.
>
>At 11:00 11/11/20nn yes. At other times no.
Interesting that you don't observe Remembrance Sunday, but you do follow
American fashion.
>Now drop it, sunshine.
Tsk. Do you like what Steve said about you, newbie?
Julian Edge
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> Julian Edge <julia...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > The words 'dignified' and 'silence' mean fuck all to you, either
together or
> > separately.
>
> Too right, but then I'm not a raving hypcrite like some people I could
> name.
>
> But if I were to name them I'd probably call them Dead Mangled Pigeon.
Oh, FFS, grow up. I'm not trying to be a fucking martyr here.
I'll freely admit that 'yea, though I walk through the valley, I fear no
evil coz I'm the biggest fucking cunt in the valley'.
We simply have different lines to cross. Mine stops short at speaking ill of
the recently deceased. Yours obviously extends far beyond.
I'll try and deal with it.
Julian Edge
> I honestly couldn't give a damn. You can do it while I'm still alive if
> it pleases you.
Do you give a shit about the people that you leave behind and what they
think?
Forget it.
Julian Edge
> Julian Edge <julia...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Do you give a shit about the people that you leave behind and what they
> > think?
>
> pack of rabid rats, no I couldn't give a fuck. You're dead, you're dead.
Aye. Probably right, but you might leave behind children / spouses / friends
who have to suffer the continued rhetoric through no fault of their own.
Would you think me unfeeling if I said that Milly Dowler was a nympho bitch
who was asking for it and deserves to be eating worms?
She most probably won't sue me but I'll bet your maiden aunt's knickers her
parents, family and friends would be pretty pissed off (and rightly so) and
might want to pull my testacles through my eye sockets.
Respect for Allen has very little to do with Allen anymore. He probably
managed to crawl further up my arse than yours (3 am phone calls) I question
the target of the venom that has issued from these parts since his death and
the reason to continue it.
(fu: silversurfers chopped)
Tyke
"Linz" <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:ameov2$200m$1...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
Tut,tut................crossposting Linz.
Russell
--
Are you still here? The message is over. Shoo! Go away!
Tyke
> In uk.net.news.config on 20 Sep 2002 02:33:52 GMT, "JulieL"
> <ju...@SPAM.little.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> }Richard: I don't think you should hold yourself
> }responsible for what has happened.
>
>
> }No one can ever _prove_ that your setting up of
> }www.thelyingcuntallen.co.uk website caused any
> }stress to Allen, nor that the massive stroke that
> }lead to his death was due to the stress from
> }your obscene behaviour towards him.
>
> child molester, failure in all things, liar, and many more, when *none*
> were true.
>
> }Don't blame yourself, Richard.
>
> possibly finish it as a memorial to a psychopath.
>
>
> His was too long, his mind failed before his body.
>
> I shall not miss the fuck at all.
>
> {R}
We won't know when you go,nobody pays much attention to
you..............sunshine.
Russell
--
Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.
Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983)
Tyke
"Spider" <n...@home.invalid> wrote in message
news:m9onouoc1ri3ov6v4...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:03:42 +0100, "Derek Reed"
> <cis.d...@derekreed.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >:) If you can't be bothered saying something reasonably nice, then
please just don't say anything.
>
>
> My condolences to Allens friends and any who will miss him.
>
> I thought some good words should come from this den of apparent hate.
>
> --
>
> NOTE: All my replies are crossposted to groups that I feel have an
inetrest in this proposal.
Thankyou for this Spider.....................gentlemen are still out there
;-)
Russell
--
Luck is when the paths of opportunity and preparation cross.
Derek Reed
Thank you. It is appreciated.
Most of the spewings forth from u.l.y. aren't fit to be opened.
It makes quite a pleasant change to read one from someone who seems to be civilised.
--
Best Regards,
Derek Reed
"Spider" <n...@home.invalid> wrote in message news:m9onouoc1ri3ov6v4...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:03:42 +0100, "Derek Reed"
> <cis.d...@derekreed.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >:) If you can't be bothered saying something reasonably nice, then please just don't say anything.
Tony Towers
[moron groups snipped]
Suzieflame <suzie...@suzieflame.net> writes:
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:09:32 +0100, Richard Ashton <'{R}'@semolina.org>, wrote
> :
>
> >In uk.net.news.config on Fri, 20 Sep 2002 20:45:43 +0100, "Julian Edge"
> ><julia...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >}The words 'dignified' and 'silence' mean fuck all to you, either
> >)together or separately.
> >
> >At 11:00 11/11/20nn yes. At other times no.
>
> Interesting that you don't observe Remembrance Sunday, but you do follow
> American fashion.
That *is* Remembrance Sunday.
--
Jamie: Have you thought up some clever plan, Doctor?
The Doctor: Yes Jamie, I believe I have.
Jamie: What are you going to do?
The Doctor: Bung a rock at it.
r@y
as '{R}'@semolina.org says...
$ How would you like to be called, rapist, pervert, alcoholic, wife beater,
$ child molester, failure in all things, liar, and many more, when *none*
$ were true.
$
For Richard
I knew Allen for a number of years. We corresponded frequently by email
and in usenet. My wife and I shared dinners with him at our home and
his. We spent hours talking on the telephone.
He was a rare commodity. A gentleman with principles.
Never once did he insult or upset me or my family and friends in any
way.
But then we never gave him any cause.
For everyone else
We must recognize we are in the presence of a genius of a level that
no one here can match. In fact I don't believe anyone here is worthy
of responding to such intelligence. No matter what persona {R}
morphs to, or screen name it so cleverly tries to surprise us with, we
are not in a position on the ladder of evolution to respond, nor do we
have the intelligence to understand the full depth of its writings.
In fact, it is no doubt worthless to even read these postings - I
assume a book will emerge at an appropriate time.
Feel very humbled to be experiencing such a time. Like Einstein,
Feynman and others, geniuses such as {R} don't visit this earth
that often.
--
The email address in the headers is a spamtrap.
If you must email me go here.
http://www.dream-weaver.com/email.html
Geoff Berrow
<data...@hotmail.com> contained the following:
>But then we never gave him any cause.
Neither did I. And yet he told many lies about me also. It had been
my intention to confront him with these face to face. The emails we
exchanged to try to set this up were surprisingly cordial. I will get
around to publishing them at some point.
Allen is dead, don't you think the feud between him and Richard should
die also?
Paul
<'{R}'@semolina.org> writes
>In uk.net.news.config on Sat, 21 Sep 2002 02:10:58 GMT, Spider
><n...@home.invalid> wrote:
>
>}I haven't suggested that you should. BUT continuing to vilify a dead
>}man makes you the mean, malevolent, nasty, hypocrite (and I'll add
>}hateful). Maybe he was reacting to the likes of you because what I
>}have seen of you so far........
>
>Will you be praising Robert Maxwell, Son of Sam, etc soon ?
>
Knowing Cal I doubt he'll be vilifying them.
--
Paul B
Peter Smyth
news:m365wzk...@mirousse.cats.tele2.co.uk
>>> }The words 'dignified' and 'silence' mean fuck all to you, either
>>> )together or separately.
>>>
>>> At 11:00 11/11/20nn yes. At other times no.
>>
>> Interesting that you don't observe Remembrance Sunday, but you do
>> follow American fashion.
>
> That *is* Remembrance Sunday.
Only once every seven years.
Peter Smyth
Suzieflame
>Stinks of sperm in here.
.sigs don't 'come' any better than that.
Suzie
--
Suzieflame
"Stinks of sperm in here." Steve "Handjob" Firth
"Richard is obviously horrid." Steve "Sidekick" Firth
"Look sunshine, you're a specious scumbered strabismus strepitous scrog
seize suzziflame and stuff it into your sagatiate, slime to the sewer
scum." Richard "Losing It" Ashton
Suzieflame
>Spider <n...@home.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Frankly I think I might have liked him.
>
>That doesn't surprise me one bit, you suck up to that feeble troll
>suzieflame as well.
<chuckle>
If I'm such a "feeble" troll, why are you so fixated on me Stevey?
----------SPACE FOR STEVEY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION------------
<sound FX of crickets chirping>
----------SPACE FOR STEVEY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION------------
>That you hypocritically preach a message of
>tolerance while supporting individuals who display none and who shit on
>the freedoms of others, you show your true colours.
I display plenty of tolerance. It's you trying to silence me with your stream
of continual abuse. Like your new .sig entry?
Tony Towers
D'oh! Mea culpa.
OK, Remembrance Day then. I'm still not quite sure what point
the flamey one was trying to make, though.
Alan LeHun
n...@home.invalid says...
> When I came here I was assured that a new group here would offer
> something different based on the atmosphere alone.... well I certainly
> agree with this (and there goes another of my objections). The
> atmosphere stinks like nowhere else in cyberspace.
Do not attribute the atmosphere here with the atmosphere in the rest of
uk*. There are some very friendly groups within uk*.
--
Alan LeHun
kat
>
> The fuckwitted flamer read 11/11/20nn as 11/09/20nn and assumed I was
> referring to the WTC event. The fuckwit flamer also said Remembrance
> Sunday which is an event not a date. You slightly goofed as The
> Eleventh Hour of the Eleventh day of the Eleventh month is a Sunday
> only every 7 years. Which, this group unnc being Pedant Town, UK, was
> bound to be picked up.
>
Surely, every 5 or 6 years? (Don't forget leap years.)
--
pedantik kat
>^..^<
Alan LeHun
says...
> > You slightly goofed as The
> > Eleventh Hour of the Eleventh day of the Eleventh month is a Sunday
> > only every 7 years. Which, this group unnc being Pedant Town, UK, was
> > bound to be picked up.
> >
>
> Surely, every 5 or 6 years? (Don't forget leap years.)
>
LOL. Tell me Kat, which days of the week are elevenphobic.
Probability tells us that the 11th should fall on any weekday evenly
over a sufficient length of time so Richards assertion is (on average)
correct.
--
Alan LeHun
kat
>>
>
> LOL. Tell me Kat, which days of the week are elevenphobic.
>
> Probability tells us that the 11th should fall on any weekday evenly
> over a sufficient length of time so Richards assertion is (on average)
> correct.
Ah, yes, I was looking at it from the other way, that you sort of get
through the week faster than 7 years. IYSWIM I admit my head isn't playing
ball tonight!
--
kat
>^..^<
kat
> Bloody hell Kat, you been here a year and you are pedanting with the
> best of them. You is definitely going on the committee next year (I
> hope). Perhaps 2 ladies on the committee (I hope) and one more for
> UKVoting would really help. Glenys fancy a bit of votetaking ?
>
<g>
I will endeavour to assist.
--
kat
>^..^<
Tyke
"Geoff Berrow" <$b...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pfaoousu5mkcm766l...@4ax.com...
> Message-ID: <MPG.17f639276...@news.cis.dfn.de> from r@y
> <data...@hotmail.com> contained the following:
>
> >But then we never gave him any cause.
>
> Neither did I. And yet he told many lies about me also. It had been
> my intention to confront him with these face to face. The emails we
> exchanged to try to set this up were surprisingly cordial. I will get
> around to publishing them at some point.
>
> Allen is dead, don't you think the feud between him and Richard should
> die also?
>
> --
> Geoff Berrow
Erm....yes.
Russell
--
"You had better stop fighting by the time I get back,or
you're ALL grounded.
-God
Glenys Pople
<'{R}'@semolina.org> writes
>Bloody hell Kat, you been here a year and you are pedanting with the best
>of them. You is definitely going on the committee next year (I hope).
Couldn't agree more.
>Perhaps 2 ladies on the committee (I hope) and one more for UKVoting would
>really help. Glenys fancy a bit of votetaking ?
Good job I had an old can of the d.s screen cleaner handy. I don't have
either the technical ability or a thick enough skin to take
responsibility for a vote but I would be more than happy to do a bit of
general dusting and polishing around the place if asked.
I did once run a Polling Station at a General Election. Not a lot of
people know that.
--
Glenys
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>
>I did once run a Polling Station at a General Election.
Heh. I did local elections, twice, in a polling station in the middle
of nowhere where the average gap between voters was around 20 minutes
(including an hour and a half at the start of the day before anyone
turned up at all). The first time was the most boring day of my entire
life, the second time I went prepared and caught up on some reading.
Mark
--
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
"I'm gonna be there tomorrow"
Paul C. Dickie
<top....@lineone.net> writes
>"Hamish McPhee" wrote
>> As poorly qualified as I am
>
>Now that I can believe.
I can't.
Even lacking any qualifications, the fellow could obtain employment as a
lavatory attendant -- but would you appoint him to so exalted a post?
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<'{R}'@semolina.org> writes
>Yes OK, Hughes never had a fixed IP that identified him specifically. I
>did not know of Hughes' death but I had personally dismissed the idea that
>that insane post was from Hughes.
From what did he perish -- and would it be possible to transfer that
affliction to the fuckwit Hulberk or his sidekick Stan "Slime" Mould?
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<n...@home.invalid> writes
>On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:36:46 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
>wrote:
>>:) JulieL <ju...@SPAM.little.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>:) > No one can ever _prove_ that your setting up of
>>:) > www.thelyingcuntallen.co.uk website caused any
>>:) > stress to Allen, nor that the massive stroke that
>>:) > lead to his death was due to the stress from
>>:) > your obscene behaviour towards him.
>>:)
>>:) But there's always hope.
>
>Does no one here respect the dead?
If you want to organise a charabanc party to water TCA into his grave,
that's up to you...
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<'{R}'@semolina.org> writes
>In uk.net.news.config on Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:52:03 GMT, Spider
><n...@home.invalid> wrote:
>}On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:36:46 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
>}wrote:
>}>:) JulieL <ju...@SPAM.little.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>}>:) > No one can ever _prove_ that your setting up of
>}>:) > www.thelyingcuntallen.co.uk website caused any
>}>:) > stress to Allen, nor that the massive stroke that
>}>:) > lead to his death was due to the stress from
>}>:) > your obscene behaviour towards him.
>}>:) But there's always hope.
>}Does no one here respect the dead?
>
>logical reason why death should change anything ?
He might haunt you?
I suppose TLFC Cummins is next for the voodoo doll treatment? o-)
--
< Paul >
Suzieflame
>Today, Sun, 22 Sep 2002 04:57:12 +0100, a possible Agent of the Al-Qaeda
> Richard Ashton <'{R}'@semolina.org> , stuck their head out of a
> bombed out cave and wrote:
>
>
>>In uk.net.news.config on Sun, 22 Sep 2002 02:08:32 +0100, M
>><webm...@msie.co.uk.INVALID> wrote:
>>}<uk.net.news.config , Richard Ashton , '{R}'@semolina.org>
>>}> }You guys wanna dance on his grave and you call *me* bizarre. Well
>>}> }that's bizarre.
>>}> Where I come from pissing on a grave is more fun.
>>}If you mock death - theres always the chance it will pay you a visit .
>>
>>Rubbish unless you are threatening me then the chance that death will
>>visit me because I mock death is zero.
>
>Plus, you're stupid. Richard The Stupid.
Why are they always called Richard?
>>}Sleep well richard :-)
>>
>>I shall. Having watched your contributions in unnc, uly and unwa I have
>>not seen you say anything worthwhile, ever. You are 100% noise, 0% signal.
>
>You're 100% sewage.
>
>>Goodbye, in the event you ever say anything useful, however improbable
>>that may be, then I can rely on somebody quoting any insightful gems of
>>wisdom.
>
>lol. Another idiot who yells KILLFILE! PLONK! but probably can't keep
>his diaper clean enough to live up to it. lol.
Suzieflame
>Spider <n...@home.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I think we started to address our individual
>> concerns. I'd like to think we found a measure of mutual respect. For
>> a long time I stood apart from Suzie. I noticed after a time that she
>> went after those who deserved it.
>
>That is patent bollocks.
Proofie woofie?
>Firstly it is of course "he" not "she".
Proofie woofie?
>Secondly since you get on a high horse about dishonouring the memory of
>the dead perhaps you had better find out what "suzieflame" refers to
What does it refer to Stevey? Enlighten me.
>and
>then consider how the relatives of the deceased must feel about the use
>that the fuckwit flamer makes of the name.
What ARE you wobbling on about?
>Thirdly suzielame is and
>always has been a third rate wannabee, it functions almost entirely by
>latching onto the coat tails of others and in response to posts it
>disagrees with floods newsgroups with crap.
That would be why I'm VOTED the best every year?
>The peopel affected are not those "who deserve it".
Can you please explain what has been done to upset you this much? Are you SO
threatened by my presence? Because you know I won't let it go?
>The people affected
>are the innocent bystanders who have their newgroup turned into unusable
>shite because one of more individuals say somethign that suzielame wants
>to censor.
I have not tried to censor anyone. That was you and Dickie. You both told me to
"shut up", "fuck off" etc. Not once have to told you to stop dribbling and
whining across Usenet. And not once have I lost my cool in the way you yokels
manage to every ten minutes.
>It also shows what a piss-poor judge of character you are.
And you support Richard Ashton. Your point is?
>> It seems if you want stature here you suck up to {R}....
>
>You'll find that no one here sucks up to Richard.
And certainly not Steve "Handjob" Firth (See below).
Geoff Berrow
Ashton contained the following:
>}I did once run a Polling Station at a General Election. Not a lot of
>}people know that.
>
>You are Michael Cain, AICMFP.
<snicker> 'You're only supposed to blow the bloody Doors off' <guffaw>
Erm..sorry..you had to be un uk.rec.humour...<mumble>
Tyke
"Richard Ashton" <'{R}'@semolina.org> wrote in message
news:838roucq6ujef3dr4...@4ax.com...
> In uk.net.news.config on Sun, 22 Sep 2002 10:19:52 +0100, "Paul C. Dickie"
> <p...@bozzie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> }In article <aprmou8dq76f5tcl1...@4ax.com>, Richard Ashton
> }<'{R}'@semolina.org> writes
> }>logical reason why death should change anything ?
> }
> }He might haunt you?
>
> I will believe it when I see it. Remember Cold Fusion.
>
> }I suppose TLFC Cummins is next for the voodoo doll treatment? o-)
>
> evidence voodoo works any better than God.
>
> {R}
;-)
Glenys Pople
<'{R}'@semolina.org> writes
>In uk.net.news.config on Sun, 22 Sep 2002 08:08:27 +0100, Glenys Pople
><g...@howfen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't have
>}either the technical ability or a thick enough skin to take
>}responsibility for a vote but I would be more than happy to do a bit of
>}general dusting and polishing around the place if asked.
>
>You shouldn't have to have a thick skin.
But sadly you do :-(
>You could certainly draft some
>polite emails ( for me at least ). I think I need 3.
>
>1) Oi fuckwit, which name of the two you have used so far do you wan to
>vote with.
>
>2) You don't have a posting record on google who the fuck are you
>
>3) You are a bloody sockpuppet of X you are cheating, admit it or be
>disallowed.
No problem. I may not speak Ashton but I read it fluently and can
easily translate it into Civil.
>}I did once run a Polling Station at a General Election. Not a lot of
>}people know that.
>
>You are Michael Cain, AICMFP.
You can knock it off my bill.
--
Glenys
kat
> Message-ID: <tf8roucl2st399fug...@4ax.com> from Richard
> Ashton contained the following:
>
>> }I did once run a Polling Station at a General Election. Not a lot
>> of }people know that.
>>
>> You are Michael Cain, AICMFP.
>
> <snicker> 'You're only supposed to blow the bloody Doors off' <guffaw>
>
> Erm..sorry..you had to be un uk.rec.humour...<mumble>
Why? Aren't we allowed to enjoy it over here?
--
kat who wanders into urh when she has time. :-)
>^..^<
kat
> But sadly you do :-(
>
>> You could certainly draft some
>> polite emails ( for me at least ). I think I need 3.
>
> No problem. I may not speak Ashton but I read it fluently and can
> easily translate it into Civil.
>
>>
I hope that isn't the same as civil service gobbledegook? :-)
--
kat
>^..^<
Suzieflame
>Does he have a brother Lawrence or {L}tS?
No but he has a sidekick called Steve - another name with a rich tradition of
kookiness. Will that do?
Christina Foster Peterson
world of racing. But certainly as a human being. Goes after only deserving
people? What a joke. She goes after anyone she thinks she can hurt. She's
simply a bully. Pathetic.
I've had the doubtful privilege to see some of her conversations with her
fellow trolling bud, "Ms Poopie Pnats" (yes that's how she spells it). AKA
Elizabeth Potenza. I wonder if that's Jason Pants' sister.
Christina
"Suzieflame" <suzie...@suzie-flame.com> wrote in message
news:i77roucjc3tbs79mi...@4ax.com...
God fearing Man
Richard Ashton <'{R}'@semolina.org> wrote:
><webm...@msie.co.uk.INVALID> wrote:
>} If you mock death - theirs always the chance it will pay you a visit .
> Rubbish unless you are threatening me then the chance
> that death will visit me because I mock death is zero.
You silly fucker, now look what you've done,
you've caused an earthquake.
Don't mess with things you don't understand.
When will the boy learn?
God Fearer #9e+10
><webm...@msie.co.uk.INVALID> wrote:
> } If you mock death - theirs always the chance it will pay you a visit .
> Rubbish unless you are threatening me then the chance
> that death will visit me because I mock death is zero.
Now look what you've done, you silly fucker, you've just
caused an earthquake.
Don't mess with things you don't understand, Richard.
Paul C. Dickie
<'{R}'@semolina.org> writes
>In uk.net.news.config on Fri, 20 Sep 2002 20:45:43 +0100, "Julian Edge"
><julia...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>}The words 'dignified' and 'silence' mean fuck all to you, either together or
>}separately.
>
>At 11:00 11/11/20nn yes.
Why?
>At other times no.
Why not also at 13:50 11/09/20nn?
--
< Paul >
Chris Croughton
<'{R}'@semolina.org> wrote:
>Bloody hell Kat, you been here a year and you are pedanting with the best
>of them. You is definitely going on the committee next year (I hope).
She has my support...
>Perhaps 2 ladies on the committee (I hope) and one more for UKVoting would
>really help. Glenys fancy a bit of votetaking ?
"The mistake we made was not in giving them the vote, or even in putting
shoes on them -- we should never have taught them to talk!" <gd&r>
Chris C
Glenys Pople
<the...@myself.com> writes
Congratulations, kat, you have been assimilated. First rule of unn*: if
there are two ways to interpret a post, deliberately choose the wrong
one :-)
--
Glenys
Glenys Pople
<ch...@keristor.org> writes
<thwack>
Why did the woman cross the road?
Never mind why she crossed the road, who was it who let her out of the
house in the first place?
--
Glenys
Geoff Berrow
contained the following:
>Why did the woman cross the road?
Hey we have a group for that sort of thing! ;-)
kat@myself.com kat
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 00:56:49 +0100, Richard Ashton
> <'{R}'@semolina.org> wrote:
>
>> Bloody hell Kat, you been here a year and you are pedanting with the
>> best of them. You is definitely going on the committee next year (I
>> hope).
>
> She has my support...
>
:-)
--
kat on the laptop
>^..^<
kat@myself.com kat
>
> Never mind why she crossed the road, who was it who let her out of the
> house in the first place?
For a long time (while I was the kids' taxi driver) I had a bumper sticker..
"If a woman's place is in the home, why am I always in the car?"
it fell apart and I was still doing it. :-/
kat@myself.com kat
It comes naturally. :-)
Linz
> Does no one here respect the dead?
Yes, if they were respectworthy when alive. I used to respect Allen. By
about 2 years ago I had no respect for him any more.
Chris Croughton
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
It wasn't me, guv!
(In case it got missed, I am very much in favour of having a better
balance[1] on the Committee and in UKVoting -- and in Usenet in general.
I do, however, tend to tease people I like...)
[1] I originally wrote that as "having better sex on the Committee"
<g>...
Chris C
Geoff Berrow
Croughton contained the following:
> I originally wrote that as "having better sex on the Committee"
Wouldn't take much to be better...
kat@myself.com kat
> [1] I originally wrote that as "having better sex on the Committee"
> <g>...
>
So that's what they get up to, is it. :-)
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
In article <9m0nougpjksbc0gts...@4ax.com>
suzie...@suzieflame.net "Suzieflame" writes:
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:09:32 +0100, Richard Ashton <'{R}'@semolina.org>, wrote
> :
>
> >In uk.net.news.config on Fri, 20 Sep 2002 20:45:43 +0100, "Julian Edge"
> ><julia...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >}The words 'dignified' and 'silence' mean fuck all to you, either together or
> >}separately.
> >
> >At 11:00 11/11/20nn yes. At other times no.
>
> Interesting that you don't observe Remembrance Sunday, but you do follow
> American fashion.
It has already been pointed out that this lamer misread the date and
assumed some connection with the events of last year.
However, no one has said WHY {R} would observe "the eleventh hour of the
eleventh day of the eleventh month" in preference to "Remembrance
Sunday"; yet I would have thought that some posters from uk.p.s would
have been all too aware that until WWII, the "two minutes silence" was
always observed on the anniversary of the signing of the Armistice.
AIUI, the entire nation used to come to a halt; policemen would set all
traffic lights manually to red in all directions; production in factories
would halt; schools would suspend lessons (or perhaps their break-time,
at that hour); etc.
The remembrance was moved to the nearest Sunday so as not to interfere
with "war work"; sadly, Attlee decided that he too did not wish to lose a
couple of minutes' productivity during the working week, and thus
Remembrance Sunday became a permanent fixture.
However, I prefer to make my remembrance on the proper anniversary, and
am pleased to see that there is an increasing groundswell that would also
like to revert to 11:00 on 11th November, whichever day of the week that
happens to be.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one of
distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being incr-
easingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs
Dave Mayall
>
> Chris Croughton wibbled:
>
> > [1] I originally wrote that as "having better sex on the Committee"
> > <g>...
> >
>
> So that's what they get up to, is it. :-)
If they do, they've kept it very quiet.
Tyke
"Linz" <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:amn0l0$198i$1...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
Well just have some respect for others and stop harping on.
Screamingwitch
"Tyke" <ty...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
news:ampjgm$81do0$1...@ID-145612.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Linz" <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:amn0l0$198i$1...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
> > Spider wrote:
> >
> > > Does no one here respect the dead?
> >
> > Yes, if they were respectworthy when alive. I used to respect Allen. By
> > about 2 years ago I had no respect for him any more.
> >
>
> Well just have some respect for others and stop harping on.
>
>
> Russell
probably the only respect she'll get is off some old tramp whos plated her
in some dis-used park toilet .HAR!
Zaphod
Paul C. Dickie wrote:
> In article <ambtdd$4ig7h$1...@ID-131267.news.dfncis.de>, Dave Lear
> <top....@lineone.net> writes
>
>>"Hamish McPhee" wrote
>>
>>>As poorly qualified as I am
>>>
>>Now that I can believe.
>>
>
> I can't.
>
> Even lacking any qualifications, the fellow could obtain employment as a
> lavatory attendant -- but would you appoint him to so exalted a post?
And if you did, would he get a brush ?
>
>
Clive D. W. Feather
In article <MPG.17f716bef...@news.clara.net>, Alan LeHun
<t...@reply.to> writes
>Probability tells us that the 11th should fall on any weekday evenly
>over a sufficient length of time so Richards assertion is (on average)
>correct.
Not true.
The 11th will fall on a Wednesday more often than any other day of the
week.
The 11th November is most likely to be a Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday,
less likely to be a Monday or Tuesday, but least likely to be a Thursday
or Saturday.
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 (NOTE CHANGE) | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Clive D. W. Feather
<g...@howfen.demon.co.uk> writes
>Good job I had an old can of the d.s screen cleaner handy.
So *that*'s where it went!
(See <http://www.urgle.com/~mike/cdwf/>.)
Dave Mayall
>
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 22:45:43 -0400, "Clive D. W. Feather"
> <cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The 11th will fall on a Wednesday more often than any other day of the
> > week.
> >
> > The 11th November is most likely to be a Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday,
> > less likely to be a Monday or Tuesday, but least likely to be a Thursday
> > or Saturday.
>
Yes.
The supposition that any date is as likely to fall upon any day of the
week as any other day of the week might at first glance seem so obvious
that it can be taken as a given.
However once we consider the underlying patterns regarding the days of
the week in various years, it will be seen that whilst there is over a
short period of time an even distribution, the rules regarding century
leap years ensure that the calendar follows a 400 year cycle which
cannot have equal day distribution.
1) The pattern of length of year follows a 400 year cycle
2) In each 400 year cycle there are 97 leap years
3) In each 400 year cycle there are (400*365)+97=146097 days
4) 146097 is exactly 20871 weeks
5) Therefore each 400 year cycle MUST begin on the same day.
6) 400 is not an exact multiple of 7
7) Therfore the day of new years day cannot be evenly distributed
8) Therefore the day of any other day cannot be evenly distributed.
Alan LeHun
group.co.uk says...
> The supposition that any date is as likely to fall upon any day of the
> week as any other day of the week might at first glance seem so obvious
> that it can be taken as a given.
Yep. Hands up. That's me. Guilty as charged.
>
> However once we consider the underlying patterns regarding the days of
> the week in various years, it will be seen that whilst there is over a
> short period of time an even distribution, the rules regarding century
> leap years ensure that the calendar follows a 400 year cycle which
> cannot have equal day distribution.
>
> 1) The pattern of length of year follows a 400 year cycle
> 2) In each 400 year cycle there are 97 leap years
> 3) In each 400 year cycle there are (400*365)+97=146097 days
In a somewhat puerile and possibly vain attempt to vindicate myself I
will point out that 400 years actually takes 146,096.88 days. In a
little over 3000 years we would have gained an extra day and it is
absolutely clear to anyone who wishes not to see the calender go out of
sync that a further adjustment will be needed, thus breaking the 400
year cycle and placing it's start point upon a different day of the
week.
My original answer therefore, was to be taken in the context of a
timeframe of several 10's of thousands of years.
Ha!
--
Alan LeHun
Denis McMahon
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 14:53:46 +0100, Dave Mayall
><da...@research-group.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> However once we consider the underlying patterns regarding the days of
>> the week in various years, it will be seen that whilst there is over a
>> short period of time an even distribution, the rules regarding century
>> leap years ensure that the calendar follows a 400 year cycle which
>> cannot have equal day distribution.
>
>Thanks. This begs the question of for how long the 400 year cycle in the
>Gregorian calendar will track the solar year sufficiently accurately.
Pretty well, the rate of leap seconds is afair < 1 per year (from the
discussion last time one occurred).
i.e. the difference between the period of the Earth's orbit round the
sun and 365 days and 6 hours is < 1 second.
Rgds
Denis
--
Denis McMahon / +44 7802 468949 / de...@pickaxe.net / www.pickaxe.net
Top-posters, posters of adverts & binaries are scum. Killfile!
If you get an email that says "send this to lots of people", it's
probably some sort of hoax. Check www.hoaxbusters.org
Dr John Stockton
news:uk.net.news.config, Clive D. W. Feather <clive@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk> posted at Sat, 5 Oct 2002 22:45:43 :-
>[I'm in catch-up mode.]
>
>In article <MPG.17f716bef...@news.clara.net>, Alan LeHun
><t...@reply.to> writes
>>Probability tells us that the 11th should fall on any weekday evenly
>>over a sufficient length of time so Richards assertion is (on average)
>>correct.
>
>Not true.
>
>The 11th will fall on a Wednesday more often than any other day of the
>week.
>
>The 11th November is most likely to be a Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday,
>less likely to be a Monday or Tuesday, but least likely to be a Thursday
>or Saturday.
Only on the Gregorian Calendar; not on the Julian.
And only those of us who are over the age of 102.5, or who will live
another 97.5 years (both approx) will be personally affected by the
difference in the calendars.
Clive : "my" translation of Zeller's Latin is much improved now.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
Dr John Stockton
news:uk.net.news.config, Dave Mayall <da...@research-group.co.uk> posted
at Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:53:46 :-
>
>The supposition that any date is as likely to fall upon any day of the
>week as any other day of the week might at first glance seem so obvious
>that it can be taken as a given.
>
>However once we consider the underlying patterns regarding the days of
>the week in various years, it will be seen that whilst there is over a
>short period of time an even distribution, the rules regarding century
>leap years ensure that the calendar follows a 400 year cycle which
>cannot have equal day distribution.
>
>1) The pattern of length of year follows a 400 year cycle
>2) In each 400 year cycle there are 97 leap years
>3) In each 400 year cycle there are (400*365)+97=146097 days
>4) 146097 is exactly 20871 weeks
>5) Therefore each 400 year cycle MUST begin on the same day.
>6) 400 is not an exact multiple of 7
>7) Therfore the day of new years day cannot be evenly distributed
>8) Therefore the day of any other day cannot be evenly distributed.
As per reply to Clive's, plus :
I find your answer unconvincing for the day of March 1st & of any
subsequent day; easily mended by counting backwards from Dec 31st for
them; better to count forwards from Mar 1st to Feb 28th next.
That answer does not remember Feb 29th itself, for which one must add
that 97 mod 7 > 0. But since 400 & 365 are not multiples of 7, and 7 is
prime, for 400 years to be a multiple of a week it is necessary that the
number of leap years is also not divisible by 7.
Rather than remembering 20871, it may be easier to remember 050607.
Alan LeHun
@pickaxe.net says...
> i.e. the difference between the period of the Earth's orbit round the
> sun and 365 days and 6 hours is < 1 second.
>
>
Mmmm
A quick search on the web throws up 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45.51
seconds which is quite a bit out from your assertion.
It is the most accurate (in terms of decimal places) that I could find.
ie 365.24219340277777 rep.
--
Alan LeHun
Don Aitken
Yup. Leap seconds don't have anything to do with the length of the
year; they are introduced to keep the day measured in seconds of
atomic time in synchronisation with the astronomical day.
--
Don Aitken
Dave Mayall
>
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 21:56:28 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
> <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 14:53:46 +0100, Dave Mayall
> ><da...@research-group.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> However once we consider the underlying patterns regarding the days of
> >> the week in various years, it will be seen that whilst there is over a
> >> short period of time an even distribution, the rules regarding century
> >> leap years ensure that the calendar follows a 400 year cycle which
> >> cannot have equal day distribution.
> >
> >Thanks. This begs the question of for how long the 400 year cycle in the
> >Gregorian calendar will track the solar year sufficiently accurately.
>
> Pretty well, the rate of leap seconds is afair < 1 per year (from the
> discussion last time one occurred).
Leap seconds are an entirely different thing! They are not to do with
keeping the length of the year correct, but rather the length of the
year.
In order to properly correct things, an extra leap year will be required
in the year 3900.
Dr John Stockton
news:uk.net.news.config, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk>
posted at Mon, 7 Oct 2002 21:56:28 :-
>> the week in various years, it will be seen that whilst there is over a
>> short period of time an even distribution, the rules regarding century
>> leap years ensure that the calendar follows a 400 year cycle which
>> cannot have equal day distribution.
>
>Gregorian calendar will track the solar year sufficiently accurately.
The Gregorian Year averages 365.2425 days exactly.
The Tropical Year, which governs the seasons; its value is currently
about 365.2421875 days or 365d 5h 48m 45s.
The difference, then, is about 0.0003125 days in about 365, which is
about 0.85 parts in a million.
Therefore, at the present rate, we'll be a month out in something like
100 millennia.
The non-circularity of the Earth's orbit presently causes the Northern
climate to be milder; I believe that, with the orbit fixed and the
Earth's tilt precessing, that north-south difference would oscillate
about 40 times faster.
It takes 198400 Greg years for the Greg & Julian calenders to return to
exact agreement such as they had around 250 AD; there's a 4-year slip in
that time. After 205059500700000 years Gregorian, the situation with
respect to the Hebrew calendar will also repeat exactly.
JRS: In article <8v24qu4uldkiv6vh8...@4ax.com>, seen in
news:uk.net.news.config, Denis McMahon <{denis}@pickaxe.net> posted at
Mon, 7 Oct 2002 23:36:25 :-
>Pretty well, the rate of leap seconds is afair < 1 per year (from the
>discussion last time one occurred).
Leap Seconds are related to the earth's rotation about its axis being
not *exactly* once in 86400 SI seconds. The only connection with the
calendar is the dates on which they are implemented.
Dr John Stockton
>Thank you. But are you considering that this extra leap year will be
>needed when the year-end is already fully 24 hours early or when it is
>just 12 hours early in order to keep the mean error less than 12 hours,
>much as leap seconds are added in order to keep the mean day-end error
>less than 30 seconds relative to the referenced solar day?
Leap Seconds are added (or subtracted) to keep "Earth Rotation Time"
within 0.9 seconds (IIRC; but certainly not 30) of the UTC clock.
Obviously that can do no better than within 0.5 seconds; I believe they
actually keep well clear of 0.9 seconds.
Mike Tullett
(snip)
> The non-circularity of the Earth's orbit presently causes the Northern
> climate to be milder; I believe that, with the orbit fixed and the
> Earth's tilt precessing, that north-south difference would oscillate
> about 40 times faster.
The elliptical nature of the earth's orbit means milder winters, but
/cooler/ summers.
--
Mike
Coleraine
Dr John Stockton
news:uk.net.news.config, Mike Tullett <mike.t...@ntlworld.com>
posted at Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:34:10 :-
Warmer winters and cooler summers constitute mildness of climate.
At present, the ellipticity causes both forms of mildening in the
Northern Hemisphere, and the opposite in the Southern.
That effect will reverse with a period of about 26,000 years.
Mike Tullett
news:<e0h7BSFK...@merlyn.demon.co.uk>:
> JRS: In article <13324b28bc489e...@40tude.net>, seen in
> news:uk.net.news.config, Mike Tullett <mike.t...@ntlworld.com>
> posted at Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:34:10 :-
>>The elliptical nature of the earth's orbit means milder winters, but
>>/cooler/ summers.
>
> Warmer winters and cooler summers constitute mildness of climate.
Ah now I understand your use of the word "mild" and, based on that, would
agree. I was looking at it more from a meteorological viewpoint, where the
word usually mean temperatures higher than normal, especially in winter.
It is often prefixed by the words "rather" and "very" depending upon just
how much above average the temperature is.
>
> At present, the ellipticity causes both forms of mildening in the
> Northern Hemisphere, and the opposite in the Southern.
Quite correct:-)
>
> That effect will reverse with a period of about 26,000 years.
I have seen several period lengths quoted for the precession cycle (NOAA
cites 22k) - from 21k yr to 26k yr but I tended to round to 20k in any work
I did on it. 20, 40 and 100 were nice easy numbers to recall with an aging
brain.
--
Mike
Coleraine
Mike Tullett
news:<7d3hquot9l808q9og...@4ax.com>:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 14:13:46 +0100, Dr John Stockton
>>:) That effect will reverse with a period of about 26,000 years.
> Hmmmm..... that's close to the ice age cycle I believe.
The main glacial/interglacial cycle over the last two million year or so,
is about 100k yr. However, the cycle referred to above is an important
component of the three main causal astronomical cycles generally accepted
as the triggers for the Pleistocene glaciations.
BTW we are still in an ice age:-) - but in one of the so-called
inter-glacials (warm periods).
--
Mike
Coleraine
Clive D. W. Feather
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> writes
>> The 11th will fall on a Wednesday more often than any other day of the
>> week.
>>
>> The 11th November is most likely to be a Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday,
>> less likely to be a Monday or Tuesday, but least likely to be a Thursday
>> or Saturday.
>
Yes. Nothing more than simple arithmetic is required.
Clive D. W. Feather
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> writes
>Thanks. This begs the question of for how long the 400 year cycle in the
>Gregorian calendar will track the solar year sufficiently accurately.
In one sense it's irrelevant, because the Gregorian calendar is what
we've got, and I'm not aware of any sunset clause in the legislation.
There may also be other forms of calendar reform; for example, it could
be agreed that 31st December and 1st January were to both be Saturdays
from [whenever the change was adopted], and therefore that 28th and 29th
February were both to be Mondays [*]. Or you could be more radical and
move the intercalary day to between 30th June and 1st July. Etc.
The Gregorian year averages 365.2425 days long. The solar year is
365.242199 days long, an error of 3 days and 13 minutes in 10,000 years.
That period will also include around (it's not predictable) 8000 leap
seconds, so in 100,000 years there's a total error of about 31 days.
The Greek/Russian year averages 365.2422222 days long (they drop 7 leap
years in each 9 centuries [+]). This is an error of just over 2 days in
100,000 years; in other words, an accuracy where leap seconds are
equally significant.
[*] Insert Bob Geldorf reference.
[+] Century years are leap years if the remainder after dividing by 900
is 200 or 600. This makes 2800 the first year where the calendars
differ.
Neil Ellwood
>
> [+] Century years are leap years if the remainder after dividing by 900
> is 200 or 600. This makes 2800 the first year where the calendars
> differ.
Century years are leap years if the first 2 figures are divisible by
4. When the year 10000 is reached it will be the first 3 figures.
--
Neil
Alan LeHun
c...@netprivatematters.co.uk says...
Wrong calender. And anyway, why not just divide by 400, like everyone
else? :)
--
Alan LeHun
Clive D. W. Feather
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> writes
>> The Greek/Russian year averages 365.2422222 days long (they drop 7 leap
>> years in each 9 centuries [+]). This is an error of just over 2 days in
>> 100,000 years; in other words, an accuracy where leap seconds are
>> equally significant.
>
>wrote that a solar year was 365.242199 "days" were you talking about solar
>days or 60x60x24 second days?
Yes.
The problem is that a solar day isn't a constant length, and as a result
"second" has at least two different definitions (there are UT seconds
and TAI seconds, and the former has several variants).
[Anyone wishing to quote stuff about caesium atoms should note that
that's TAI seconds.]
There are also proposals to abolish leap seconds or make them
predictable.
> If the former, then leap seconds should be
>irrelevant and if the latter, doesn't the regular insertion of leap
>seconds prevent them form accumulating into this "equal significance".
The point was that the order of magnitude of the errors are about the
same, so it's not a good idea to predict beyond that point.
Clive D. W. Feather
Neil Ellwood <c...@netprivatematters.co.uk> writes
>> [+] Century years are leap years if the remainder after dividing by 900
>> is 200 or 600. This makes 2800 the first year where the calendars
>> differ.
>Century years are leap years if the first 2 figures are divisible by
>4. When the year 10000 is reached it will be the first 3 figures.
(1) Try reading for comprehension.
(2) In the Gregorian calendar, century years are leap years if and only
if they are divisible by 400.