A cruel fraud!

From: James Maynard <james.h.maynard_at_USA.NET>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 23:57:11 -0800

In reply to one of my posts, M. Warner Losh <imp_at_BSDIMP.COM> wrote:

> In message: <43D1FB58.1000007_at_usa.net>
> James Maynard <james.h.maynard_at_usa.net> writes:
> : M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : > UTC works for navigation, but leap seconds pose problems for other
> : > users of time. Stating absolutely that UTC is not broken ignores
> : > these other users.
> :
> : Those "other uses," for whom leap seconds pose a problem, should be
> : using a time scale that does not have leap seconds. They would be better
> : served, for example, by TAI.
> You really should read the archives of this list. We've been over
> this in great detail.

This rather rude reply turns out to be a cruel fraud. I had already
begun to review the archives of this list. After receiving this message,
I continued to do so. After spending about 18 hours in the archives, I
had read from the first postings in 2001, through the 2001 postings and
the 2002 postings, up to about July 2003. There are MANY references to
TAI as a suitable time scale for users who prefer not to deal with leap

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.

It's cruel to insult a newbie so, and cause him to spend hours and hours
perusing the archives, to no avail.

> 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.

James Maynard
Salem, Oregon, USA
Received on Sat Jan 21 2006 - 23:57:36 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 04 2010 - 09:44:55 PDT