info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Very late news?
10 views
Skip to first unread message
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jun 10, 2022, 11:43:36 AM6/10/22
to
OK, OT as it isn't a technical matter.
The ?th-century warship wreck off Norfolk: all the reporting is that
it's been discovered. It would be more accurate to say its discovery has
been _revealed_; apparently it was _discovered_ about 15 years ago.
(Kudos to the discoverers for keeping it secret for that long!)
OK, not really important in the scheme of things; but it does jar to me
as sloppy reporting.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Who is Art, and why does life imitate him?
The ?th-century warship wreck off Norfolk: all the reporting is that
it's been discovered. It would be more accurate to say its discovery has
been _revealed_; apparently it was _discovered_ about 15 years ago.
(Kudos to the discoverers for keeping it secret for that long!)
OK, not really important in the scheme of things; but it does jar to me
as sloppy reporting.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Who is Art, and why does life imitate him?
Brian Gaff
Jun 10, 2022, 11:48:46 AM6/10/22
to
Well it means the rest of us have discovered it. What will happen now, I'm
assuming in the intervening years that whatever was needed to be done, has
been.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:rE+qWJU2Y2oiFwWs@a.a...
assuming in the intervening years that whatever was needed to be done, has
been.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:rE+qWJU2Y2oiFwWs@a.a...
Theo
Jun 10, 2022, 1:44:23 PM6/10/22
to
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
> OK, OT as it isn't a technical matter.
>
> The ?th-century warship wreck off Norfolk: all the reporting is that
> it's been discovered. It would be more accurate to say its discovery has
> been _revealed_; apparently it was _discovered_ about 15 years ago.
> (Kudos to the discoverers for keeping it secret for that long!)
>
> OK, not really important in the scheme of things; but it does jar to me
> as sloppy reporting.
See also the 'secret' bunker, tunnel or whatever - where 'secret' just means
> OK, OT as it isn't a technical matter.
>
> The ?th-century warship wreck off Norfolk: all the reporting is that
> it's been discovered. It would be more accurate to say its discovery has
> been _revealed_; apparently it was _discovered_ about 15 years ago.
> (Kudos to the discoverers for keeping it secret for that long!)
>
> OK, not really important in the scheme of things; but it does jar to me
> as sloppy reporting.
that the journalist hadn't heard of it before.
Theo
Max Demian
Jun 11, 2022, 7:40:26 AM6/11/22
to
On 10/06/2022 16:41, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> OK, OT as it isn't a technical matter.
>
> The ?th-century warship wreck off Norfolk: all the reporting is that
> it's been discovered. It would be more accurate to say its discovery has
> been _revealed_; apparently it was _discovered_ about 15 years ago.
> (Kudos to the discoverers for keeping it secret for that long!)
>
> OK, not really important in the scheme of things; but it does jar to me
> as sloppy reporting.
15 years to verify its identity.
> OK, OT as it isn't a technical matter.
>
> The ?th-century warship wreck off Norfolk: all the reporting is that
> it's been discovered. It would be more accurate to say its discovery has
> been _revealed_; apparently it was _discovered_ about 15 years ago.
> (Kudos to the discoverers for keeping it secret for that long!)
>
> OK, not really important in the scheme of things; but it does jar to me
> as sloppy reporting.
--
Max Demian
charles
Jun 11, 2022, 8:45:37 AM6/11/22
to
In article <nqqdnSUu3oy-4jn_...@brightview.co.uk>, Max Demian
BTW, It's 17th C - not 7th C.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Max Demian
Jun 11, 2022, 9:11:05 AM6/11/22
to
On 11/06/2022 13:35, charles wrote:
> In article <nqqdnSUu3oy-4jn_...@brightview.co.uk>, Max Demian
> <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On 10/06/2022 16:41, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> OK, OT as it isn't a technical matter.
>>>
>>> The ?th-century warship wreck off Norfolk: all the reporting is that
>>> it's been discovered. It would be more accurate to say its discovery
>>> has been _revealed_; apparently it was _discovered_ about 15 years
>>> ago. (Kudos to the discoverers for keeping it secret for that long!)
>>>
>>> OK, not really important in the scheme of things; but it does jar to me
>>> as sloppy reporting.
>
>> 15 years to verify its identity.
>
> BTW, It's 17th C - not 7th C.
Certainly not ?th.
> In article <nqqdnSUu3oy-4jn_...@brightview.co.uk>, Max Demian
> <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On 10/06/2022 16:41, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> OK, OT as it isn't a technical matter.
>>>
>>> The ?th-century warship wreck off Norfolk: all the reporting is that
>>> it's been discovered. It would be more accurate to say its discovery
>>> has been _revealed_; apparently it was _discovered_ about 15 years
>>> ago. (Kudos to the discoverers for keeping it secret for that long!)
>>>
>>> OK, not really important in the scheme of things; but it does jar to me
>>> as sloppy reporting.
>
>> 15 years to verify its identity.
>
> BTW, It's 17th C - not 7th C.
--
Max Demian
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jun 11, 2022, 10:15:27 AM6/11/22
to
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 at 14:10:59, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com>
wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
Really? I did hear some mention on one of the later reports that
_protecting_ the site took some of the time (at least, something like
"now the site is properly protected"), but it was only a brief mention,
so I don't know if that accounted for much of the time. you might be
right about the identification - though I'd have _thought_ it wouldn't
... well, I was going to say take that long to _date_ it (styles of wine
bottles etc.), but I suppose it might have taken some more time to
actually _identify_ it.
>> BTW, It's 17th C - not 7th C.
>
>Certainly not ?th.
>
I was just being lazy - when I started the thread, I couldn't remember
which century. I had a feeling 16 came into it, but I've always found it
confusing (though I understand why) that the number of the century is
not the same as the first two (usually) digits.
enjoy. - Prof Stepehen Hawking in RT 2013/12/7-13
wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
_protecting_ the site took some of the time (at least, something like
"now the site is properly protected"), but it was only a brief mention,
so I don't know if that accounted for much of the time. you might be
right about the identification - though I'd have _thought_ it wouldn't
... well, I was going to say take that long to _date_ it (styles of wine
bottles etc.), but I suppose it might have taken some more time to
actually _identify_ it.
>> BTW, It's 17th C - not 7th C.
>
>Certainly not ?th.
>
which century. I had a feeling 16 came into it, but I've always found it
confusing (though I understand why) that the number of the century is
not the same as the first two (usually) digits.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Someone once said that scientists and prostitutes get paid for doing what they
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
enjoy. - Prof Stepehen Hawking in RT 2013/12/7-13
0 new messages