On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:29:57 +0000, Yeasty Cock-Slimmer wrote:
On 14 Mar 2004 05:12:20 -0800, (Michael
Dennis) wrote:

It took place exactly 2 and half years after 9/11 and approx 911 days after 9/11.

Hell, if Americans wrote the date the proper way, the terrorists
wouldn't have had to wait so long. Maybe that's why they hate the US.

Do you always write numbers with the least signifigant digits first?
Do you write one hundred and twenty three as 231?

If anything is ****ed up with the way dates are written, it is putting
the year last. It should be first as in 2001/09/11

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 15:26:42 +0000, Yeasty Cock-Slimmer
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:06:38 -0600, TCS
wrote:

Do you always write numbers with the least signifigant digits first?
Do you write one hundred and twenty three as 231?

If anything is ****ed up with the way dates are written, it is putting
the year last. It should be first as in 2001/09/11

You may well have a point there. But as the year comes last, it makes
sense to put the date first.

It can just as easily be argued that the date is the most significant
digit as it most precisely places the referenced time, when the date
is considered a whole entity.

I'm sure Arnold will find something about with which to quibble
though.

"Yeasty Cock-Slimmer" wrote in message
news:15u850dvir2ufnukbcnl0gog18rdmssnei@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:06:38 -0600, TCS
wrote:

Do you always write numbers with the least signifigant digits
first?
Do you write one hundred and twenty three as 231?

If anything is ****ed up with the way dates are written, it is
putting
the year last. It should be first as in 2001/09/11

You may well have a point there. But as the year comes last, it
makes
sense to put the date first.

--
td

"Yeasty Cock-Slimmer" wrote in message
news:15u850dvir2ufnukbcnl0gog18rdmssnei@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:06:38 -0600, TCS
wrote:

Do you always write numbers with the least signifigant digits
first?
Do you write one hundred and twenty three as 231?

If anything is ****ed up with the way dates are written, it is
putting
the year last. It should be first as in 2001/09/11

You may well have a point there. But as the year comes last, it
makes
sense to put the date first.

Having given considerable thought to this issue (believe it or not!)
I've come to the conclusion that the best way to write the date is
day/month/year, with the month spelled out with 3 letters. Today's
date is 14Mar2004. For those applications where the date is known to
the nearest century, 14Mar04. There cannot be any confusion, and the
use of letters in the middle eliminates the need for dividing marks.
This is the army way as I recall.

It's been suggested that one letter is sufficient to encode the month,
since there are only 12 possibilities. This is true, but it would be
arbitrary, and would have to be learned, whereas 3 letters is self
explanatory. How about 2 letters?
JA,FB,MR,AP,MY,JN,JL,AU,SP,OC,NV,DE. The only problem with this set
is June, which could be confused with January. Perhaps JE for June.

Norm Strong

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 10:41:23 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Weasels have spines. Sanders has none.

Al-Queda thanks Allah for spineless infidels like him.

ScottW

I see that you're intent on wasting an *entire* weekend.

What a bitter person you are...

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 18:31:09 +0000, La señal wrote:
"TCS" emitted :

Hell, if Americans wrote the date the proper way, the terrorists
wouldn't have had to wait so long. Maybe that's why they hate the US.

Do you always write numbers with the least signifigant digits first?

Do you put the year first?
yes


Next!
do you have a point?

--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

Michael Dennis wrote:

"Sandman" wrote in message . ..

It appears that Al Queda, while preparing for a major new attack on the
U.S., is practicing by systematically punishing the administrations of those

Well, duh. 911 days after the first attack. We knew something was
likely to happen that day, but Spain was a surprize as it's not
really any sort of typical target.

From: (Michael Dennis)
Date: 3/15/04 12:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Joseph Oberlander wrote in message
rthlink.net...
Michael Dennis wrote:

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

It appears that Al Queda, while preparing for a major new attack on the
U.S., is practicing by systematically punishing the administrations of
those

Well, duh. 911 days after the first attack. We knew something was
likely to happen that day, but Spain was a surprize as it's not
really any sort of typical target.

Its not a typical target. but it was very much part of the coalition
As far as some islamic fundamentalists are concerned there were old
scores to settle regarding "crusades " as well.
Spain was also an islamic country once and as their avowed aim is the
recreation of an islamic empire why not start with Spain?





Coalition? But the Left keeps saying we acted unilaterally.

I think you can be assured we will never let terrorists win. Here
or in the UK.

Judging by the results right here in the US, the "terrorists" have
already won. I'm sure that they never anticipated that we would so
easily give up the civil rights that we fought so hard to obtain.
(And, of course, I doubt that they ever guessed that the twin towers
would actually come down. I certainly wouldn't have.)

In the meantime we must persuade the Spanish not to abandon
the cause as they have shown thro their election result that
terrorists can change governments indirectly


I think they have already done so. They will live to regret it.

Its very reassuring that the alliance is still working.
As for the Spanish we must coninue working to bring them back on
board
or else , as you say , they will regret it.

And I'm sure we will see to it that they regret it. The US has a
tendency to regard differences of opinion as traitorous.

Norm Strong