Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
Subject:
            Re: 2,000-year leap-year?
      Date:
            Mon, 09 Dec 1996 10:55:02 -0800
      From:
            Simon Cassidy <simoncas@pacbell.net>
        To:
            CALNDR-L@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU
 
fidencio rojas sandoval replied to my message (cc'ed to CALNDR-L) of 3 Dec.:
>
> Dear Simon Cassidy:
>
>         Very interesting and ingenious is the  "years of Jesus"? rule "8
> leap-year in every 33 years" rule which gives an average calendar year of
> 365.242424... days. It is more precise and it would have more frequent
> close-fitting in the calendar than the Gregorian leap-year rule. Regrettably
> is very recherché for the people understand and to adopt it.
>         The ecclesiastical calendars of Christian churches would not have
> utility, since the Church fix dates of Easter within a period very large,
> from 23rd. march until, 25th april (it enough that Vernal Equinox to occur
> at any time within about 52 calendar-hours, spreading the dates of Spring
> Equinox over 3 calendar days, march 19,20,21).
>         Neither in the agriculture, the season in itself it has strong
> climatic changes along year.
>         We will Follow, then, with us Gregorian leap-year for a long time.
>         I appreciate spend your time with my letters.
>
>                 Best Regards.
>                 Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
>                 Fidencio Rojas Sandoval.
>                 93 Ajusco
>                 Tlapan D. F.
>                 14050, México
>                 Ph (525)665-3873
>
>

Fidencio's single objection to a "new Common Era Leapyear Decision Procedure"
appears to be that it is "very recherche for the people" [to] "understand and
to adopt it". [Sorry! I don't know how to type "e" with an acute accent like
Fidencio]. I assume Fidencio is applying this French word in its primary
meaning (i.e. "new", "unusual") rather than its secondary meaning ("chic",
"fashionable").

This objection, then, is generic, and not specific to the proposal in
question since it amounts to saying that any new proposal is regerettably
"new". By this logic nothing "new" will ever get done!

Any new way of doing anything is always confusing at first, even if it later
becomes, in retrospect, more natural, simpler and more logical than its
predecessor. Thus one cannot judge any new Leapyear Decision Procedure until
one is familiar with it.

The Gregorian procedure is still so obscure that most people could not tell
you (without consulting an authority) whether, and why, 2000AD will be leap!
--
Dee's Y'rs, Simon Cassidy, 1053 47th.St. Emeryville Ca. 94608. ph.510-547-0684