Re: BC/AD vs BCE/CE

Subject: Re: BC/AD vs BCE/CE
From: "E,T, Hull" <ethull -at- WORLDACCESS -dot- NL>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:13:10 +0100

on November 2, 15,576,984,685 at 21:17
Richard Yanowitz wrote:

> Apparently so: it's actually 15,576,984,685 (it was revised last month
> after analysis of data recovered from the Hubbell telescope.)

Yeah, but wit a minute, that date was acquired when Hubble was
"nearsighted".
>
> Of course, this dating method may offend Christian fundamentalists who
> don't believe in a Big Bang....;

I must admit it that it while solving one problem it may cause others.
gives others.

Ed

Posts: mailto:techwr-l -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu
Commands: mailto:listserv -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu (e.g. SIGNOFF TECHWR-L)
Archives: http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html,
http://www.documentation.com/, or http://www.dejanews.com/
Subjects: JOB:, QUESTION:, SUMMARY:, ANNOUNCE:, or none of these.



Previous by Author: Re: 15,576,984,687 ABB
Next by Author: Re: Controlling translation costs
Previous by Thread: Re: BC/AD vs BCE/CE
Next by Thread: Sydney dinner with special guest...


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads