In message: <43D33AD7.6040209_at_usa.net>
James Maynard <james.h.maynard_at_USA.NET> writes:
: If "we've been over this in great detail," I would like a more specific
: reference to the postings that did so. Also, "we've been over this in
: great detail" seems not to have settled the issue.
We have been over these points in great detail. Both here, and over
on the time-nuts mailing list. Many of the same posters post to both
lists.
: It's cruel to insult a newbie so, and cause him to spend hours and hours
: perusing the archives, to no avail.
You learned a great deal. You can learn more by reading the time nuts
archive as well.
http://www.febo.com/pipermail/time-nuts/
: > TAI is specifically contraindicated as a time
: > scale.
:
: > TAI is not currently recommended by its creators as a viable time
: > scale.
: >
:
: These claims are intellectually fraudulent. The archives in fact support
: the opposite of what Mr. Losh contends.
Actually, it isn't quite that cut and dried.
Warner
Received on Sun Jan 22 2006 - 00:40:17 PST