Joining list. Calendar reforms.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

             <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D06781A4F@...>
                        <6D9B92C9-B595-40BE-80AC-2E467B01E021@...>
                        <BLU134-W1E0E6A7A65AAE775AEA8ACF360@...>
                        <34FDD9B1-AB5F-46B3-9EB1-94AEDD753161@...>
             A<BLU134-W12BB5D16476AFF5908C54CF370@...>
 <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D06781EFA@...>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jun 2009 23:29:33.0135 (UTC) FILETIME=[CB75C5F0:01C9F5EC]



=20
Karl says:

=20
If Mike continues to take this attitude
=20
I reply:
=20
Regrettably=2C Karl doesn't share with us what attitude he's talking about.=
 Maybe we're supposed to guess that the same way we should guess what speci=
fications and rules Irv thinks I left out.
=20
Karl continues:
=20
=2C then I suggest that we not waste time attempting to discuss his alleged=
 proposals at all.
=20
Sayonara=2C Karl
=20
As for "alleged"=2C what has been alleged=2C but not supported=2C is the cl=
aim that I've left out necessary rules and specifications for my proposals.=
 Though that claim has been repeated again and again=2C the left-out rules =
and specifications have never been named.

=20
The onus is on the proposer to ensure that calendar people has easy access =
to his proposals. Saying that they are in (unspecified) previous posts is n=
ot good enough.
=20
I reply:
=20
Hello? I've said several times that:
=20
1. I'm going to post a long posting defining and completely specifying all =
of my proposals in that one posting.
=20
2. The rules and specifications that Irv says I left out have=2C in fact=2C=
 been posted here by me.
=20
Statements #1 and #2 don't contradict eachother.
=20
I've been discussing the proposals with list-members. Busy with that=2C I h=
aven't had the time to post that one larger all-encompassing proposal-posti=
ng. It will be along within a day or so.
=20
The fact that I've been replying to Karl and Irv=2C and therefore haven't h=
ad time to post the all-proposals posting isn't something for Irv and Karl =
to get all hysterical over.
=20
Sure=2C year-structure=2C leapyear rules and date-comparisons are what I wa=
s going to post in that long posting.=20
=20
Karl continues:
=20
No calendar reform is going to succeed=2C if the reformer makes it hard to =
find out exactly what the proposed reform is.  No reform is going to succee=
d if the reformer is not prepared to repeat stating the details of the cale=
ndar changing the wording to suit the particular audience each time.
=20
I reply:
=20
Excuse me=2C Karl=2C but I've been saying for 2 days that I'm going to post=
 all the proposals' definitions together. I've never said I wouldn't repeat=
 them to a different audience=2C in wording suitable to the audience.
=20
My disagreement with Irv=2C and now with you=2C is not that I want to refus=
e to post a comprehensive proposals-definitions posting. It's about Irv's c=
laim that I have never posted necessary rules and specifications for my pro=
posals. Irv has continued to never specify what he claims that I left out.
=20
Mike Ossipoff
=20
=20
=20
_________________________________________________________________
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that=92s right for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=3Dftp_val_wl_290=

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

             <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D06781A4F@...>
                        <6D9B92C9-B595-40BE-80AC-2E467B01E021@...>
                        <BLU134-W1E0E6A7A65AAE775AEA8ACF360@...>
                        <34FDD9B1-AB5F-46B3-9EB1-94AEDD753161@...>
             A<BLU134-W12BB5D16476AFF5908C54CF370@...>
 <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D06781FD6@...>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jun 2009 23:56:04.0764 (UTC) FILETIME=[802515C0:01C9F5F0]


Karl says:

> Here is an intelligent guess at Mike=92s calendar proposals:
=20
I reply:
=20
Calling it a "guess" doesn't sound very intelligent to me. Did Karl use ESP=
=2C or did he cheat and read my postings? :-)
=20
What a coincidence that some of his guesses are so accurate. Karl must be a=
 very good guesser.
=20
Karl continues:
=20
> Calendar A (non-fixed):
>
>
>
> Year Structure: Seasons North 117 days=2C Southward 66 days=2C South
> 117 days =2C Northward 65 days with extra day in leap years.

I reply:=20
=20
Karl's guess wasn't very good. Give him partial credit. The numbers of days=
 in the seasons are those of one of my nonfixed proposals. But he says that=
 I want leapday in Northward. I specifically said more than once that I wan=
t leapday before summer. In fact=2C I specifically said that I want leapday=
 in South=2C the first season of the year.
=20
Karl=2C you aren't as good a guesser as I'd hoped for. I said several times=
 where I wanted leapday in my nonfixed calendars.
=20
Let me explain why: If leapday is after summer=2C then summer won't always =
begin on "Gregorian" June 1.=20
=20
=20
Karl continues:
=20
> Leap Year Rule: As Gregorian Calendar
=20
I reply:
=20
Yes=2C and with leapday in South=2C the first season of the year. Leapday m=
ust be before Summer.
=20
> Correlation: North 2001 begins on June 1=2C 2000 in Gregorian calendar

I reply:
=20
Good guess! North of every year begins on June 1. But with your bad guess a=
bout leapday=2C that wouldn't be so.
=20
Karl continues:
=20
Karl continues:
=20
> Calendar B (non-fixed):
>
=20
Excellent guess=2C considering that this is your own proposal=2C Karl. I qu=
oted and endorsed it.
=20

>
>
> Year Structure: Seasons North 122 days=2C Southward 61 days=2C South
> 121 days with extra day in leap years=2C Northward 61 days.
>
>
>
> Leap Year Rule: As Gregorian Calendar.
>
>
>
> Correlation: North 2001 begins on June 1=2C 2000 in Gregorian
> Calendar

I reply:
=20
With the Gregorian leapyear system=2C and with leapday in South=2C every No=
rth begins on "Gregorian" June 1.
=20
=20

>
>
>
> Note: This results in seasons beginning on June 1=2C October 1=2C
> December 1 and April 1 in each Gregorian year.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Calendar C (fixed):
>
>
>
> Year Structure: Seasons North 119 days (17 weeks)=2C Southward 63
> days (9 weeks)=2C South 119 days (17 weeks) with extra 7 days (1 week) in=

 leap
> years=2C Northward 63 days (9 weeks).
>
>
=20
Karl continues:

> Leap Year rule: As ISO week based year (i.e. years with 53
> Thursdays in Gregorian Calendar)
=20
I have nothing against the leapyear rule that Karl specifies in the paragra=
ph before this one. It isn't anything that I've proposed=2C specified or su=
ggested=2C but I have no objection to it. This is what I mean by a proposal=
 being open=2C flexible and broad.=20
=20
Karl's leapyear rule is fine with me. I'll describe my own suggestion in my=
 long upcoming posting.
=20
=20
> Correlation: North 2001 begins on Friday 1 June 2001 (and
> so every season begins on Friday)

Fine. But I would hope that the drift of NorthI/1 with respect to the "Greg=
orian" dates is at least roughly centered upon June 1 in some way. I'll def=
ine those terms better in my long posting.
=20
>
>
>
> Note: This results in seasons beginning 3 days before June
> 1=2C October 1=2C December 1 and April 1 in Symmetry454 calendar for ever=
y year
> from 1977 to 2019 and many more besides.

Whoa! What? Bad guess. That isn't something that I would want. But=2C as I =
said=2C I believe in open=2C flexible and broad proposals=2C and so I would=
n't even object to that=2C if Karl and other calendar-reformers wanted it=
=2C and if it was a condition to their accepting Subjective Seasonal. It ju=
st isn't anything that I've said that I want.
=20
> The year structure rule also implicitly starts the year with
> the North Season.
=20
Another incorrect guess. I've been saying that I'd start the year with Sout=
h=2C because starting the year in that part of the year is what everyone is=
 used to.
=20
Karl=2C those guesses aren't all as good as they could have been.
=20
Karl continues:
=20
> There may be more proposals in addition to the three listed.

Yes=2C I've proposed four nonfixed year-structurs=2C and you've proposed on=
e=2C which I've adopted (the one consisting of whole "Gregorian" months). A=
nd of course one nonfixed proposal. But I've discussed two ways of dividing=
 the seasons into months. Mine and Karl's. As with other details=2C I'm not=
 fussy about this. Karl's way is fine with me.
=20
Ok=2C you had basically the right idea most of the time=2C Karl=2C but some=
 of your guesses weren't guided what I explicitly said in my postings.
=20
Mike Ossipoff
=20
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail=AE has ever-growing storage! Don=92t worry about storage limits.=20
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=3DTXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tuto=
rial_Storage_062009=

[Mark J. Reed]

Am I the only one getting messages where the mailing list reflector
seems to have decided to cut off the headers and start treating them
as body text?   It always seems to be Mike's messages, and they're
very hard to read this way...

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:29 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF<nkklrp@...> wrote:

>             <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D06781A4F@...>
>                        <6D9B92C9-B595-40BE-80AC-2E467B01E021@...>
>                        <BLU134-W1E0E6A7A65AAE775AEA8ACF360@...>
>                        <34FDD9B1-AB5F-46B3-9EB1-94AEDD753161@...>
>             A<BLU134-W12BB5D16476AFF5908C54CF370@...>
>  <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D06781EFA@...>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jun 2009 23:29:33.0135 (UTC) FILETIME=[CB75C5F0:01C9F5EC]
>
>
>
> =20
> Karl says:
>
> =20
> If Mike continues to take this attitude
> =20
> I reply:
> =20
> Regrettably=2C Karl doesn't share with us what attitude he's talking about.=
>  Maybe we're supposed to guess that the same way we should guess what speci=
> fications and rules Irv thinks I left out.
> =20
> Karl continues:
> =20
> =2C then I suggest that we not waste time attempting to discuss his alleged=
>  proposals at all.
> =20
> Sayonara=2C Karl
> =20
> As for "alleged"=2C what has been alleged=2C but not supported=2C is the cl=
> aim that I've left out necessary rules and specifications for my proposals.=
>  Though that claim has been repeated again and again=2C the left-out rules =
> and specifications have never been named.
>
> =20
> The onus is on the proposer to ensure that calendar people has easy access =
> to his proposals. Saying that they are in (unspecified) previous posts is n=
> ot good enough.
> =20
> I reply:
> =20
> Hello? I've said several times that:
> =20
> 1. I'm going to post a long posting defining and completely specifying all =
> of my proposals in that one posting.
> =20
> 2. The rules and specifications that Irv says I left out have=2C in fact=2C=
>  been posted here by me.
> =20
> Statements #1 and #2 don't contradict eachother.
> =20
> I've been discussing the proposals with list-members. Busy with that=2C I h=
> aven't had the time to post that one larger all-encompassing proposal-posti=
> ng. It will be along within a day or so.
> =20
> The fact that I've been replying to Karl and Irv=2C and therefore haven't h=
> ad time to post the all-proposals posting isn't something for Irv and Karl =
> to get all hysterical over.
> =20
> Sure=2C year-structure=2C leapyear rules and date-comparisons are what I wa=
> s going to post in that long posting.=20
> =20
> Karl continues:
> =20
> No calendar reform is going to succeed=2C if the reformer makes it hard to =
> find out exactly what the proposed reform is.  No reform is going to succee=
> d if the reformer is not prepared to repeat stating the details of the cale=
> ndar changing the wording to suit the particular audience each time.
> =20
> I reply:
> =20
> Excuse me=2C Karl=2C but I've been saying for 2 days that I'm going to post=
>  all the proposals' definitions together. I've never said I wouldn't repeat=
>  them to a different audience=2C in wording suitable to the audience.
> =20
> My disagreement with Irv=2C and now with you=2C is not that I want to refus=
> e to post a comprehensive proposals-definitions posting. It's about Irv's c=
> laim that I have never posted necessary rules and specifications for my pro=
> posals. Irv has continued to never specify what he claims that I left out.
> =20
> Mike Ossipoff
> =20
> =20
> =20
> _________________________________________________________________
> Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that=92s right for you.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=3Dftp_val_wl_290=
>
>

--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[Mark J. Reed]

Why do you keep putting "Gregorian" in quotation marks when referring
to dates?

"Gregorian June 1" means "June 1st on the Gregorian calendar".
There's no need for scare-quotes.  It's not some arbitrary or possibly
misleading label.

[Karl Palmen]

Dear Mark, Irv, Victor, Mike and Calendar People

No Mark, I've been receiving plenty of messages from Mike that are mucked up.

I think Mike needs to reconfigure his E-mailer to make it compatible with CALNDR-L or use a different format for his E-mails (e.g. plain text or HTML).

I deliberately sent an E-mail in plain text to attempt to avoid this problem, but it hasn't worked.

Karl

10(10(03 till noon

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Mark J. Reed
Sent: 26 June 2009 02:44
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: June-September season

Am I the only one getting messages where the mailing list reflector
seems to have decided to cut off the headers and start treating them
as body text?   It always seems to be Mike's messages, and they're
very hard to read this way...

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:29 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF<nkklrp@...> wrote:

>             <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D06781A4F@...>
>                        <6D9B92C9-B595-40BE-80AC-2E467B01E021@...>
>                        <BLU134-W1E0E6A7A65AAE775AEA8ACF360@...>
>                        <34FDD9B1-AB5F-46B3-9EB1-94AEDD753161@...>
>             A<BLU134-W12BB5D16476AFF5908C54CF370@...>
>  <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D06781EFA@...>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jun 2009 23:29:33.0135 (UTC) FILETIME=[CB75C5F0:01C9F5EC]
>
>
>
> =20
> Karl says:
>
> =20
> If Mike continues to take this attitude
> =20
> I reply:
> =20
> Regrettably=2C Karl doesn't share with us what attitude he's talking about.=
>  Maybe we're supposed to guess that the same way we should guess what speci=
> fications and rules Irv thinks I left out.
> =20
> Karl continues:
> =20
> =2C then I suggest that we not waste time attempting to discuss his alleged=
>  proposals at all.
> =20
> Sayonara=2C Karl
> =20
> As for "alleged"=2C what has been alleged=2C but not supported=2C is the cl=
> aim that I've left out necessary rules and specifications for my proposals.=
>  Though that claim has been repeated again and again=2C the left-out rules =
> and specifications have never been named.
>
> =20
> The onus is on the proposer to ensure that calendar people has easy access =
> to his proposals. Saying that they are in (unspecified) previous posts is n=
> ot good enough.
> =20
> I reply:
> =20
> Hello? I've said several times that:
> =20
> 1. I'm going to post a long posting defining and completely specifying all =
> of my proposals in that one posting.
> =20
> 2. The rules and specifications that Irv says I left out have=2C in fact=2C=
>  been posted here by me.
> =20
> Statements #1 and #2 don't contradict eachother.
> =20
> I've been discussing the proposals with list-members. Busy with that=2C I h=
> aven't had the time to post that one larger all-encompassing proposal-posti=
> ng. It will be along within a day or so.
> =20
> The fact that I've been replying to Karl and Irv=2C and therefore haven't h=
> ad time to post the all-proposals posting isn't something for Irv and Karl =
> to get all hysterical over.
> =20
> Sure=2C year-structure=2C leapyear rules and date-comparisons are what I wa=
> s going to post in that long posting.=20
> =20
> Karl continues:
> =20
> No calendar reform is going to succeed=2C if the reformer makes it hard to =
> find out exactly what the proposed reform is.  No reform is going to succee=
> d if the reformer is not prepared to repeat stating the details of the cale=
> ndar changing the wording to suit the particular audience each time.
> =20
> I reply:
> =20
> Excuse me=2C Karl=2C but I've been saying for 2 days that I'm going to post=
>  all the proposals' definitions together. I've never said I wouldn't repeat=
>  them to a different audience=2C in wording suitable to the audience.
> =20
> My disagreement with Irv=2C and now with you=2C is not that I want to refus=
> e to post a comprehensive proposals-definitions posting. It's about Irv's c=
> laim that I have never posted necessary rules and specifications for my pro=
> posals. Irv has continued to never specify what he claims that I left out.
> =20
> Mike Ossipoff
> =20
> =20
> =20
> _________________________________________________________________
> Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that=92s right for you.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=3Dftp_val_wl_290=
>
>

--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[Karl Palmen]

Dear Mark, Mike and Calendar People

After looking at one of Mike's mucked up notes, it appears he does not agree with this (i.e. my guesses are not correct).

Perhaps he uses different year numbering, in which case the Leap Year Rule would need modifying.
Perhaps he starts the year with a different season, in which case the order in the Year Structure needs changing and possibly the other rules need modifying.

I'd appreciate if Mike puts his proposals forward in the same form as my guesses.

Karl

10(10(04

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Mark J. Reed
Sent: 25 June 2009 16:38
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Mike Ossipoff's Calendar Proposals (An intelligent guess)

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Palmen, KEV
(Karl)<karl.palmen@...> wrote:
> Here is an intelligent guess at Mike’s calendar proposals:

> Calendar A (non-fixed):
>
> Year Structure: Seasons North 117 days, Southward 66 days, South 117 days ,
> Northward 65 days with extra day in leap years.
>
> Leap Year Rule: As Gregorian Calendar
>
> Correlation: North 2001 begins on June 1, 2000 in Gregorian calendar
>
> Note: This results in seasons beginning on June 1, September 26, December 1
> and March 28 in each Gregorian common year.

Likewise in a leap year except that Northward starts on March 27th.

> Calendar B (non-fixed):
>
> Year Structure: Seasons North 122 days, Southward 61 days, South 121 days
> with extra day in leap years, Northward 61 days.
>
> Leap Year Rule: As Gregorian Calendar.
>
> Correlation: North 2001 begins on June 1, 2000 in Gregorian Calendar
>
> Note: This results in seasons beginning on June 1, October 1, December 1 and
> April 1 in each Gregorian year.

In both of the above, today is obviously the 25th day of North in the year 2010.

> Calendar C (fixed):
>
> Year Structure: Seasons North 119 days (17 weeks), Southward 63 days (9
> weeks), South 119 days (17 weeks) with extra 7 days (1 week) in leap years,
> Northward 63 days (9 weeks).
>
> Leap Year rule: As ISO week based year (i.e. years with 53 Thursdays in
> Gregorian Calendar)
>
> Correlation:  North 2001 begins on Friday 1 June 2001 (and so every season
> begins on Friday)

Hm.  Why does North 2001 begin in Gregorian 2001 for this proposal,
but Gregorian 2000 for the other two?

>
> Note: This results in seasons beginning 3 days before  June 1, October 1,
> December 1 and April 1 in Symmetry454 calendar for every year from 1977 to
> 2019 and many more besides.
>
>
>
> The Year Structure rule may also specify subdivisions of the seasons, such
> as months. I leave to Mike to add such.
>
> The year structure rule also implicitly starts  the year with the North
> Season. The correlation rule states how these years are numbered.
>
>
>
> There may be more proposals in addition to the three listed.
>
> Mike may correct my guess.
>
>
>
> Karl
>
>
>
> 10(10(03
>
>
>
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
>

--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[Mark J. Reed]

The problem is an extra blank line in the headers, ending them
prematurely.  I don't know if it's Mike's mailer inserting it or if
something else about his messages is confusing the listserv software
into doing so...


On 6/26/09, Palmen, KEV (Karl) <karl.palmen@...> wrote:

> Dear Mark, Irv, Victor, Mike and Calendar People
>
> No Mark, I've been receiving plenty of messages from Mike that are mucked
> up.
>
> I think Mike needs to reconfigure his E-mailer to make it compatible with
> CALNDR-L or use a different format for his E-mails (e.g. plain text or
> HTML).
>
> I deliberately sent an E-mail in plain text to attempt to avoid this
> problem, but it hasn't worked.
>
> Karl
>
> 10(10(03 till noon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Mark J. Reed
> Sent: 26 June 2009 02:44
> To: CALNDR-L@...
> Subject: Re: June-September season
>
> Am I the only one getting messages where the mailing list reflector
> seems to have decided to cut off the headers and start treating them
> as body text?   It always seems to be Mike's messages, and they're
> very hard to read this way...
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:29 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF<nkklrp@...> wrote:
>>
>> <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D06781A4F@...>
>>                        <6D9B92C9-B595-40BE-80AC-2E467B01E021@...>
>>                        <BLU134-W1E0E6A7A65AAE775AEA8ACF360@...>
>>                        <34FDD9B1-AB5F-46B3-9EB1-94AEDD753161@...>
>>             A<BLU134-W12BB5D16476AFF5908C54CF370@...>
>>  <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D06781EFA@...>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jun 2009 23:29:33.0135 (UTC)
>> FILETIME=[CB75C5F0:01C9F5EC]
>>
>>
>>
>> =20
>> Karl says:
>>
>> =20
>> If Mike continues to take this attitude
>> =20
>> I reply:
>> =20
>> Regrettably=2C Karl doesn't share with us what attitude he's talking
>> about.=
>>  Maybe we're supposed to guess that the same way we should guess what
>> speci=
>> fications and rules Irv thinks I left out.
>> =20
>> Karl continues:
>> =20
>> =2C then I suggest that we not waste time attempting to discuss his
>> alleged=
>>  proposals at all.
>> =20
>> Sayonara=2C Karl
>> =20
>> As for "alleged"=2C what has been alleged=2C but not supported=2C is the
>> cl=
>> aim that I've left out necessary rules and specifications for my
>> proposals.=
>>  Though that claim has been repeated again and again=2C the left-out rules
>> =
>> and specifications have never been named.
>>
>> =20
>> The onus is on the proposer to ensure that calendar people has easy access
>> =
>> to his proposals. Saying that they are in (unspecified) previous posts is
>> n=
>> ot good enough.
>> =20
>> I reply:
>> =20
>> Hello? I've said several times that:
>> =20
>> 1. I'm going to post a long posting defining and completely specifying all
>> =
>> of my proposals in that one posting.
>> =20
>> 2. The rules and specifications that Irv says I left out have=2C in
>> fact=2C=
>>  been posted here by me.
>> =20
>> Statements #1 and #2 don't contradict eachother.
>> =20
>> I've been discussing the proposals with list-members. Busy with that=2C I
>> h=
>> aven't had the time to post that one larger all-encompassing
>> proposal-posti=
>> ng. It will be along within a day or so.
>> =20
>> The fact that I've been replying to Karl and Irv=2C and therefore haven't
>> h=
>> ad time to post the all-proposals posting isn't something for Irv and Karl
>> =
>> to get all hysterical over.
>> =20
>> Sure=2C year-structure=2C leapyear rules and date-comparisons are what I
>> wa=
>> s going to post in that long posting.=20
>> =20
>> Karl continues:
>> =20
>> No calendar reform is going to succeed=2C if the reformer makes it hard to
>> =
>> find out exactly what the proposed reform is.  No reform is going to
>> succee=
>> d if the reformer is not prepared to repeat stating the details of the
>> cale=
>> ndar changing the wording to suit the particular audience each time.
>> =20
>> I reply:
>> =20
>> Excuse me=2C Karl=2C but I've been saying for 2 days that I'm going to
>> post=
>>  all the proposals' definitions together. I've never said I wouldn't
>> repeat=
>>  them to a different audience=2C in wording suitable to the audience.
>> =20
>> My disagreement with Irv=2C and now with you=2C is not that I want to
>> refus=
>> e to post a comprehensive proposals-definitions posting. It's about Irv's
>> c=
>> laim that I have never posted necessary rules and specifications for my
>> pro=
>> posals. Irv has continued to never specify what he claims that I left
>> out.
>> =20
>> Mike Ossipoff
>> =20
>> =20
>> =20
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that=92s right for you.
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=3Dftp_val_wl_290=
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
>
>

--
Sent from my mobile device

Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[Karl Palmen]

Dear Mark, Mike and Calendar People

It's not just headers that are affected, but some of the characters are apparently written in a form not recognised by listserv or whatever and get converted into things such as =20 and =2C. I think =20 is meant to be a space character and =2C a comma. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCII#ASCII_printable_characters .

What E-mailer is Mike using?

Karl

10(10(04

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Mark J. Reed
Sent: 26 June 2009 14:25
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Some of Mike's Messages are Mucked Up RE: June-September season

The problem is an extra blank line in the headers, ending them
prematurely.  I don't know if it's Mike's mailer inserting it or if
something else about his messages is confusing the listserv software
into doing so...


On 6/26/09, Palmen, KEV (Karl) <karl.palmen@...> wrote:

> Dear Mark, Irv, Victor, Mike and Calendar People
>
> No Mark, I've been receiving plenty of messages from Mike that are mucked
> up.
>
> I think Mike needs to reconfigure his E-mailer to make it compatible with
> CALNDR-L or use a different format for his E-mails (e.g. plain text or
> HTML).
>
> I deliberately sent an E-mail in plain text to attempt to avoid this
> problem, but it hasn't worked.
>
> Karl
>
> 10(10(03 till noon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Mark J. Reed
> Sent: 26 June 2009 02:44
> To: CALNDR-L@...
> Subject: Re: June-September season
>
> Am I the only one getting messages where the mailing list reflector
> seems to have decided to cut off the headers and start treating them
> as body text?   It always seems to be Mike's messages, and they're
> very hard to read this way...
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:29 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF<nkklrp@...> wrote:
>>
>> <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D06781A4F@...>
>>                        <6D9B92C9-B595-40BE-80AC-2E467B01E021@...>
>>                        <BLU134-W1E0E6A7A65AAE775AEA8ACF360@...>
>>                        <34FDD9B1-AB5F-46B3-9EB1-94AEDD753161@...>
>>             A<BLU134-W12BB5D16476AFF5908C54CF370@...>
>>  <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D06781EFA@...>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jun 2009 23:29:33.0135 (UTC)
>> FILETIME=[CB75C5F0:01C9F5EC]
>>
>>
>>
>> =20
>> Karl says:
>>
>> =20
>> If Mike continues to take this attitude
>> =20
>> I reply:
>> =20
>> Regrettably=2C Karl doesn't share with us what attitude he's talking
>> about.=
>>  Maybe we're supposed to guess that the same way we should guess what
>> speci=
>> fications and rules Irv thinks I left out.
>> =20
>> Karl continues:
>> =20
>> =2C then I suggest that we not waste time attempting to discuss his
>> alleged=
>>  proposals at all.
>> =20
>> Sayonara=2C Karl
>> =20
>> As for "alleged"=2C what has been alleged=2C but not supported=2C is the
>> cl=
>> aim that I've left out necessary rules and specifications for my
>> proposals.=
>>  Though that claim has been repeated again and again=2C the left-out rules
>> =
>> and specifications have never been named.
>>
>> =20
>> The onus is on the proposer to ensure that calendar people has easy access
>> =
>> to his proposals. Saying that they are in (unspecified) previous posts is
>> n=
>> ot good enough.
>> =20
>> I reply:
>> =20
>> Hello? I've said several times that:
>> =20
>> 1. I'm going to post a long posting defining and completely specifying all
>> =
>> of my proposals in that one posting.
>> =20
>> 2. The rules and specifications that Irv says I left out have=2C in
>> fact=2C=
>>  been posted here by me.
>> =20
>> Statements #1 and #2 don't contradict eachother.
>> =20
>> I've been discussing the proposals with list-members. Busy with that=2C I
>> h=
>> aven't had the time to post that one larger all-encompassing
>> proposal-posti=
>> ng. It will be along within a day or so.
>> =20
>> The fact that I've been replying to Karl and Irv=2C and therefore haven't
>> h=
>> ad time to post the all-proposals posting isn't something for Irv and Karl
>> =
>> to get all hysterical over.
>> =20
>> Sure=2C year-structure=2C leapyear rules and date-comparisons are what I
>> wa=
>> s going to post in that long posting.=20
>> =20
>> Karl continues:
>> =20
>> No calendar reform is going to succeed=2C if the reformer makes it hard to
>> =
>> find out exactly what the proposed reform is.  No reform is going to
>> succee=
>> d if the reformer is not prepared to repeat stating the details of the
>> cale=
>> ndar changing the wording to suit the particular audience each time.
>> =20
>> I reply:
>> =20
>> Excuse me=2C Karl=2C but I've been saying for 2 days that I'm going to
>> post=
>>  all the proposals' definitions together. I've never said I wouldn't
>> repeat=
>>  them to a different audience=2C in wording suitable to the audience.
>> =20
>> My disagreement with Irv=2C and now with you=2C is not that I want to
>> refus=
>> e to post a comprehensive proposals-definitions posting. It's about Irv's
>> c=
>> laim that I have never posted necessary rules and specifications for my
>> pro=
>> posals. Irv has continued to never specify what he claims that I left
>> out.
>> =20
>> Mike Ossipoff
>> =20
>> =20
>> =20
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that=92s right for you.
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=3Dftp_val_wl_290=
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
>
>

--
Sent from my mobile device

Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[Mark J. Reed]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Palmen, KEV
(Karl)<karl.palmen@...> wrote:
> Dear Mark, Mike and Calendar People
>
> It's not just headers that are affected, but some of the characters are apparently written in a form not recognised by listserv or whatever and get converted into things such as =20 and =2C. I think =20 is meant to be a space character and =2C a comma.

No, that's just because the body of the message is in quoted-printable
encoding.  If the headers weren't messed up, your mailer would realize
that and automatically translate those = sequences; you wouldn't see
it in the raw form. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoted-printable.

The sole problem with the mail format is the extra blank line.

--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[Karl Palmen]

Dear Mark, Mike and Calendar People

Thank you Mark for making the situation clear.

Karl

10(10(04

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Mark J. Reed
Sent: 26 June 2009 15:18
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Some of Mike's Messages are Mucked Up RE: June-September season

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Palmen, KEV
(Karl)<karl.palmen@...> wrote:
> Dear Mark, Mike and Calendar People
>
> It's not just headers that are affected, but some of the characters are apparently written in a form not recognised by listserv or whatever and get converted into things such as =20 and =2C. I think =20 is meant to be a space character and =2C a comma.

No, that's just because the body of the message is in quoted-printable
encoding.  If the headers weren't messed up, your mailer would realize
that and automatically translate those = sequences; you wouldn't see
it in the raw form. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoted-printable .

The sole problem with the mail format is the extra blank line.

--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[Mark J. Reed]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Mark J. Reed<markjreed@...> wrote:
> The sole problem with the mail format is the extra blank line.

Well, actually there are some other lines out of place.   Here's the
full header from the first message I got that was mangled in this
manner:


1 Delivered-To: markjreed@...
2 Received: by 10.115.78.1 with SMTP id f1cs8090wal;
3        Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
4 Received: by 10.224.32.69 with SMTP id b5mr2602265qad.9.1245972574934;
5        Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
6 Return-Path: <owner-calndr-l@...>
7 Received: from hdmail.ecu.edu (hdmail.ecu.edu [150.216.17.60])
8        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 26si347148qyk.153.2009.06.25.16.29.34;
9        Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
10 Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of
owner-calndr-l@... designates 150.216.17.60 as permitted
sender) client-ip=150.216.17.60;
11 Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain
of owner-calndr-l@... designates 150.216.17.60 as
permitted sender) smtp.mail=owner-calndr-l@...
12 Received: from Pegasus ([150.216.17.18])
13 by hdmail.ecu.edu (L-Soft HDMail 1.1-3); Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:29:33 -0400
14 X-VirtualServerGroup: Default
15 X-Destination-ID: markjreed@...
16 X-MailingID: 00000::00000::00000::00000::::28851
17 X-SMHeaderMap: mid="X-MailingID"
18 X-SMFBL: bWFya2pyZWVkQEdNQUlMLkNPTQ==
19 X-Mailer: L-Soft HDMail 1.1-3
20 Received: by LISTSERV.ECU.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 15.5) with spool id
21          36028581 for CALNDR-L@...; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:29:34
22          -0400
23 Received: from blu0-omc4-s30.blu0.hotmail.com by PEGASUS.ECU.EDU (LSMTP for
24          Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id
<0.040A8B03@...>; Thu, 25
25          Jun 2009 19:29:34 -0400
26 Received: from BLU134-W13 ([65.55.111.136]) by blu0-omc4-s30.blu0.hotmail.com
27          with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 25 Jun 2009
16:29:33 -0700
28 X-Originating-IP: [209.149.16.45]
29 Importance: Normal
30 References: <25696.49153.qm@...>
31            <BLU134-W115BD26F8EBF0C2348B2A6CF400@...>
32            A<BLU134-W23F83A2469817A1A8A8016CF3C0@...>
33            <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D0670D67D@...>
34            <BLU134-W66749C66813CA70E6146BCF3D0@...>
35            <4142674D-9225-479F-8D9C-5DE7E2B26492@...>
36            A<BLU134-W10E16CD42659E4DAD4DF9BCF3A0@...>
37 Message-ID:  <BLU134-W134A28713230F738DC8929CF340@...>
38 Date:         Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:29:33 +0000
39 Reply-To:     East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
40              <CALNDR-L@...>
41 Sender:       East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
<CALNDR-L@...>
42 From:         MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp@...>
43 Subject: Re: June-September season
44 To:           CALNDR-L@...
45 In-Reply-To:
<677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D06781EFA@...>
46 Precedence: list
47 List-Help: <https://listserv.ecu.edu/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=CALNDR-L>,
48           <mailto:LISTSERV@...?body=INFO%20CALNDR-L>
49 List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:CALNDR-L-unsubscribe-request@...>
50 List-Subscribe: <mailto:CALNDR-L-subscribe-request@...>
51 List-Owner: <mailto:CALNDR-L-request@...>
52 List-Archive: <https://listserv.ecu.edu/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=CALNDR-L>
53
54
<677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D06781A4F@...>
55                        <6D9B92C9-B595-40BE-80AC-2E467B01E021@...>
56                        <BLU134-W1E0E6A7A65AAE775AEA8ACF360@...>
57                        <34FDD9B1-AB5F-46B3-9EB1-94AEDD753161@...>
58             A<BLU134-W12BB5D16476AFF5908C54CF370@...>
59 <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D06781EFA@...>
60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
61 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
62 MIME-Version: 1.0
63 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jun 2009 23:29:33.0135 (UTC)
FILETIME=[CB75C5F0:01C9F5EC]
64


Things are going swimmingly up through line 52, at which point
something strange happens. The blank line 53 causes the receiving
mailer to think that the headers have stopped, which means it never
sees line 61's indication that the message body is in quoted-printable
encoding.  It therefore assumes it's plain text and we get the equal
signs etc displayed.

Lines 54-59 appear to be references to earlier messages which should
belong between lines 36 and 37 instead..

--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

 
Calendar Mailing-List members,
 
First, I apologize for the ugliness of some of the previous discussion. I never want it to get like that.
 
It was suggested that I post my propsals in one single posting, and I said I would.
 
But I have an angry crowd, and it seems to be getting angrier, more impatient and increasingly intolerant with each day that I don't post, together, my specifications for my proposals. Therefore, I feel that it's important that I start today. That means that my Subjective Seasonal Calendar proposals will be posted in two volumes. Vol.I, today I hope, will be General and Fixed.
VolII, Monday, will be Nonfixed and a summary of the 17 Subjective Seasonal Calendars that could be made based on the choices that I'm suggesting.
 
I apologize for the delay, and I never meant to be uncooperative. I just haven't, till today, had time to write one long posting.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
 
 
 

---

Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage. Get it on your BlackBerry or iPhone.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

 |
 
General:
 
I'd like a calendar whose year divisions and their names explicity refer to the natural year that every calendar measures. Specifically, to the seasons that we all perceive, and which are what meaningfully characterize different parts of the year.
 
Nearly eveywhere in the north and south temperate regions, it's possible for a single calendar to represent the seasons fairly well. Anyway, the mere effort to make that representation gives a calendar meaning and unarbitrariness that it wouldn't otherwise have, even if, in some places, the seasonal lag differs from the calendar's usual midrange lag.
 
I stipulate the following things:
 
The seasonal divisions should be consistent with people's expressed perceptions about the times of the year's seasons, as best those expressed perceptions have been heard.
 
In particular: Because many have said and written, over a long time and in diverse regions, that the far north declination season arrives with June, and that the far south declination arrives with December. The north season, "North" should begin on "Gregorian" June 1 for nonfixed versions; and, for fixed calendars, North's beginning should correspond to a solar ecliptic longitude as close as possible to the average solar ecliptic longitude for June 1 during the the leapyear cycle during which the calendar comes into use, or else the 2004-2008 leapyear cycle.
 
The calendar's seasonal divisions should be reasonably consistent with an estimate of the usual midrange or mean seasonal timelag. I've found that usual midrange to be about 1.25 months, and I stipulate that as the lag for the calendar's seasonal divisions to be reasonably consistent with, unless someone finds a better extimate.  

That's loosely worded. I give a specific detailed suggestion for it among my suggestions below.
 
I emphasize that the above qualifies as a proposal, but not a completely specified one. I will specify some suggested details below. They are suggestions, not stipulations. Above is my general or core proposal. Below are suggested details and suggested specific rules.
 
In this posting I specify some suggested rules for the fixed Subjective Seasonal Calendar.
 
It uses leapweeks to make it a fixed calendar. Like most leapweek fixed calendars, it has 52 weeks in non-leapyears and 53 weeks in leapyears.
 
Year Divisions:
 
North and South are each 17 weeks long. North is the season corresponding to and lagging behind the sun's more north declination. South is correspondingly defined.
 
The transitional seasons, Norhward and Southward, are each 9 weeks long.
 
Each of those four calendar seasons is divided into months of exactly four or five whole weeks.
 
Two alternative month systems:
 
1. Mike Months:
 
North and South have the following pattern of 4 & 5 week months: 5,4,4,4
 
Northward and Southward have the following pattern: 5,4
 
2. Karl's months:
 
Karl proposed an arrangement of the 4 & 5 week months that achieves some measure of altrnation of 4 & 5. I don't know the details of his proposal. I don't oppose it. My favorite? Mike months.
 
Leapyear System:
 
First, I emphasize that I'm not adamant about my suggestion below. Any reasonable leapyear system, probably including any proposed by anyone here, would be fine with me. Below, I describe the leapyear system that I suggest, but do not stipulate:
 
When I refer to solar exliptic longitude, I refer to the kind that assumes a uniform motion along the ecliptic, disregarding nutation.
 
The "position" of a date and time is the solar ecliptic longitude at that date and time.
 
An "lyc" (leapyear cycle) is a time-period from the end of one Gregorian leapyear to the end of the next Gregorian leapyear, during the years when every 4th year is a Gregorian leapyear.
 
The "middle" of an lyc is the midpoint of the variation of the position of June 1 during that lyc.
 
The "desinated lyc" is defined in two alternative ways:
 
1. 2004-2008:
 
2004-2008 is the designated lyc.
 
2. Current lyc:
 
The designated lyc is the lyc that contains the first year in which the new calendar is in use.  (I suggest that the new calendar begin use on "Gregorian" January 1 of some "Gregorian" year. I refer to that year as "the first year")
 
Two ways to determine the relionship of NorthI/1 to June 1 in the first year:
 
1. Matching year-start:
 
Choose the new-calendar date for Gregorian January 1 in such a way that NorthI/1 will be on "Gregorian" June 1.
 
2. designated lyc year-start:
 
Choose the new calendar date for January 1 such that the position of the midnight that starts NorthI/1 is as close as possible to the middle of the designated lyc.
 
Have a leapyear when necessary, to minimize the distance of the position of NorthI/1 from the middle of the designated lyc.
 
Here's how I suggest doing that:
 
"Zero Year" means the first year, or any year immediately following a Gregorian leapyear.
 
For any zero year, "d" is the position of NorthI/1 in that year minus the center of the designated lyc. "d" can be positive or negative.
 
For any zero year, the next leapyear should be the 5th year after that zero year if:
 
abs(d+.45314) < abs(d-.78905)
 
Otherwise the next leapyear should be the 4th year after the zero year.
 
When doing a leapyear on the 5th year after a zero year, add .45314 to d.
 
When doing a leapyear on the 4th year after a zero year, subtract .78905 from d.
 
[conclusion of Vol.I]
 
I haven't intentionally left anything out, or left any necessary rules unspecified. If I have, I hope that someone will tell me what I've left out.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009

[Mark J. Reed]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:33 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF<nkklrp@...> wrote:
> General:
>
> I'd like a calendar whose year divisions and their names explicity refer to the natural year that every calendar measures.

Point of order: not every calendar measures the natural year.  Many
calendars have no notion of a year at all.  And many of those that do
have a "year" have one that doesn't correspond to the natural year,
just as our current calendar has "months" that don't correspond to the
natural month (phases of the Moon).

> Specifically, to the seasons that we all perceive,

...at least those of us in temperate zones.. :)

> North and South are each 17 weeks long. North is the season corresponding to and lagging behind the sun's more north
> declination. South is correspondingly defined.
>
> The transitional seasons, Norhward and Southward, are each 9 weeks long.

So why are North and South twice as long as Northward and Southward?

> Each of those four calendar seasons is divided into months of exactly four or five whole weeks.
>
> Two alternative month systems:
>
> 1. Mike Months:
>
> North and South have the following pattern of 4 & 5 week months: 5,4,4,4
>
> Northward and Southward have the following pattern: 5,4
>
> 2. Karl's months:
>
> Karl proposed an arrangement of the 4 & 5 week months that achieves some measure of altrnation of 4 & 5. I don't know the
> details of his proposal. I don't oppose it. My favorite? Mike months.

Since you have a total of 12 months, four of which have five weeks,
the most even distribution of the 5-week months would be to place them
at every third month:

North/South: 4,4,5,4
Northward/Southward: 4,5

Then the year as a whole goes 4,4,5,4,4,5,4,4,5,4,4,5, and not only do
each pair of like-size seasons follow the same pattern, but every
quarter does likewise.

I would not be surprised if that's basically what Karl proposed.

> Leapyear System:

> An "lyc" (leapyear cycle) is a time-period from the end of one Gregorian leapyear to the end of the next Gregorian leapyear,
> during the years when every 4th year is a Gregorian leapyear.

So what about the centennial 8-year gaps between leap years?

> The designated lyc is the lyc that contains the first year in which the new calendar is in use.  (I suggest that the new calendar
> begin use on "Gregorian" January 1 of some "Gregorian" year. I refer to that year as "the first year")

You're using the scare-quotes around "Gregorian" again.  Could you
please not do so?  It's distracting and inappropriate.

> Two ways to determine the relionship of NorthI/1 to June 1 in the first year:

"NorthI"?

> Have a leapyear when necessary, to minimize the distance of the position of NorthI/1 from the middle of the designated lyc.

Given the wobble inherent in a leap-week-based calendar, it might be
overkill to have a precise astronomical rule for when to insert the
leap week.  A simple arithmetic rule would be a better fit.  There
have been several proposals for such; none of them is quite as
straightforward as the Gregorian system, given the need to alternate
between 5- and 6-year gaps fairly frequently.

--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Fortunately, when I attempted to post Vol.I yesterday, I forgot to label it as such in the subject line. Maybe that gives me a reprive for the ommissions that it contains. I'll mention those omissions now, and then I'll post Vol.I, Subjective Seasonal Calendar as soon as possible, hopefully today.
 
I'm taking Karl's advice, when he said that concisely posting my proposals, appropriately labeled in the subject line, is something I should do before replying to messages, because nothing I could say in reply can be as necessary as clarifying what I propose, and my suggestions for specific rules.
 
So, though I'm going to post the appropriately labeled first part as soon as possible, I want to mention here and correct my omissions yesterday:
 
The initial date-alignment method that I called "matched year-start" (but whose name I'm changing to "matching initial date-alighment) wouldn't work with the leapyear rule I specified. In my complete posting, I won't call "matched year-start" a suggestion, but I'll mention it as a possibility. My only suggestion for initial date-alignment will be what I called "designated lyc year-start" (whose name I'm changing to "centered initial date alignment). I will include an alternative leapyear rule that will work with "matched initial date-alignment.
 
The leapyear rule that will work with "matching initial date-alignment":
 
Have a leapyear in the first year for which abs(d-5.75781)
_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

 
General:  
 
I'd like a calendar whose year divisions and their names explicity refer to the natural year that every calendar measures. Specifically, to the seasons that we all perceive, and which are what meaningfully characterize different parts of the year.  
 
Nearly eveywhere in the north and south temperate regions, it's possible for a single calendar to represent the seasons fairly well.  
 
Anyway, the mere effort to make that representation gives a calendar meaning and unarbitrariness that it wouldn't otherwise have, even if, in some places, the seasonal lag differs from the calendar's usual midrange lag.  
 
I stipulate the following things: The seasonal divisions should be consistent with people's expressed perceptions about the times of the year's seasons, as best those expressed perceptions have been heard.  
 
In particular: Because many have said and written, over a long time and in diverse regions, that the high north declination season arrives with June, and that the high south declination season arrives with December. The north season, "North" should begin on "Gregorian" June 1 for nonfixed versions; and, for fixed calendars, North's beginning should correspond to a solar ecliptic longitude as close as possible to the average solar ecliptic longitude for June 1 during the the leapyear cycle during which the calendar comes into use, or else the 2004-2008 leapyear cycle. (Below suggest specific rules).  
 
The calendar's seasonal divisions should be reasonably consistent with an estimate of the usual midrange or mean seasonal timelag. I've found that usual midrange to be about 1.25 months, and I stipulate that as the lag for the calendar's seasonal divisions to be reasonably consistent with, unless someone finds a better extimate.  That's loosely worded. I give specific detailed suggestions below.
 
I emphasize that the above qualifies as a proposal, but not a completely specified one. I will specify some suggested details below. They are suggestions, not stipulations.
 
Above is my general or core proposal.
 
In this posting I specify some suggested rules for the fixed Subjective Seasonal Calendar.
 
It uses leapweeks to make it a fixed calendar.  
 
Like most leapweek fixed calendars, it has 52 weeks in non-leapyears and 53 weeks in leapyears.  
 
Year Divisions: North and South are each 17 weeks long. North is the season corresponding to, and lagging behind, the sun's more north declination. South is correspondingly defined, for south declination. The transitional seasons, Norhward and Southward, are each 9 weeks long.  
 
Each of those four calendar seasons is divided into months of exactly four or five whole weeks.  
 
Two alternative month systems:  
 
1. Mike Months:
 
North and South have the following pattern of 4 & 5 week months: 5,4,4,4 Northward and Southward have the following pattern: 5,4  
 
2. Karl months: Karl proposed an arrangement of the 4 & 5 week months that achieves some measure of altrnation of 4 & 5. I don't know the details of his proposal. I don't oppose it. My favorite? Mike months.  
 
Leapyear System:
 
First, I emphasize that I'm not adamant about my suggestions below. Any reasonable leapyear system, probably including any proposed by anyone here, would be fine with me. Below, I describe the leapyear systems that I suggest, but do not stipulate:  
 
The "position" of a date and time is the solar ecliptic longitude at that date and time.  
 
An "lyc" (leapyear cycle) is a time-period from the end of one Gregorian leapyear to the end of the next Gregorian leapyear, during the years when every 4th year is a Gregorian leapyear.  
 
The "middle" of an lyc is the midpoint of the variation of the position of midnight GMT, June 1 during that lyc.  
 
The "desinated lyc" is defined in two alternative ways, each of which is a suggestion for choosing the designated lyc:  
 
1. 2004-2008:  2004-2008 is the designated lyc.  
 
2. Current lyc:  The designated lyc is the lyc that contains the first year in which the new calendar is in use.
 
(I suggest that the new calendar begin use on "Gregorian" January 1 of some "Gregorian" year. I refer to the Subjective Seasonal Calendar year at that time as "the first year")  
 
Two ways to determine the relionship of NorthI/1 to June 1 in the first year:  
 
1. Matched initial date-alighment:  Choose the new-calendar date for Gregorian January 1 in such a way that NorthI/1 will be on "Gregorian" June 1.  
 
2. centered initial date alignment:  Choose the new calendar date for January 1 such that the position of the GMT midnight that starts NorthI/1 is as close as possible to the middle of the designated lyc.
 
Have a leapyear when necessary, to minimize the distance of the position of NorthI/1 from the middle of the designated lyc.  
 
Here are suggestions for doing that:  
 
"Zero Year" means the first year (the new calendar's 1st calendar year in use), or any year immediately following a Gregorian leapyear.  
 
For any zero year, "d" is the position of NorthI/1 in that year minus the center of the designated lyc. "d" can be positive or negative.  
 
Calculating d:  divide the subtraction-result in the previous paragraph by the "average local speed", defined below:
 
Finding the average local speed:
 
In the solar ecliptic longitude tables in the Astronomical Almanac or similar book of astronomical information, find the ecliptic longitude table entry that differs from that of midnight June 1 by more than does the middle of the designated lyc, but differs in the same direction, and is the entry of that description that differs least from the entry for midnight June 1.
 
The date of that new entry, I'll call the "outside date".
 
Find the difference between the solar ecliptic longitude on midnight of the outside date and the solar ecliptic longitude on midnight of June 1.
 
Divide that difference by the number of days by which the outside date differs from June 1.
 
That gives you the average local speed.
 
To get d, in units of days, divide (ecliptic longitude for midnight GMT, June 1 minus the middle of the designated lyc) by the average local speed.
 
Two alternative suggested procedures for finding the next leapyear:
 
1. 4-or-5:
 
For any zero year, the next leapyear shall be the 5th year after that zero year if abs(d+.45314) < abs(d-.78905)
 
Otherwise the next leapyear shall be the 4th year after the zero year.  
 
When doing a leapyear on the 5th year after a zero year, add .45314 to d. When doing a leapyear on the 4th year after a zero year, subtract .78905 from d.  
 
[conclusion of 4-or-5 definition]
 
I prefer the brevity of "first-low", described below:
 
2. first-low:
 
When a non-leap year ends and the next year begins, subtract 5.75781 from d, to get the new d for that year after the leapyear.
 
After a zero year, add a leapweek to the first year for which abs(d-5.75781) < abs(d-4.51562).
 
[conclusion of "1st low" definition]
 
The centered initial date-alignment is compatible with either of those two leapyear procedures. The matched initial date-alignment must use 1st low for its first leapyear, but could use either method afterwards. I'd just use 1st low.
 
I recommend 1st low because of its brevity.
 
Matched Initial Date Alignment has the advantage of showing, right away, the intent to relate NorthI/1 to June 1.
 
Centered Inital Date Alignment has the aesthetic appeal of starting out as a consistent part of the leapyear procedure.
 
The need to propose a new leapyear system is a complication and a disadvantage of any fixed calendar proposal. I suspect that, for that reason, a nonfixed calendar reform may be more winnable.
 
This concludes Vol.I, of Subjective Seasonal Calendar Proposals, telling my general proposal and specifics for the fixed versions.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Mark asked:
 
So why are North and South twice as long as Northward and Southward?
 
I reply:
 
Because, in the perceptions of everyone in the north and south temperate regions, summer arrives with June and lasts into September. The lengths derive from combining the June 1 start with the average timelag. We've discussed that thoroughly
 
_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009

[Mark J. Reed]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 4:35 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF<nkklrp@...> wrote:
>
> Because, in the perceptions of everyone in the north and south temperate regions, summer arrives with June and lasts into September.

You keep making unsupportably broad assertions.

Even assuming you mean only the north temperate regions, since June is
winter in the south temperate zone, it's clear that not "everyone"
perceives things that way, or there would not have been a long thread
in which nearly "everyone" on the list disagreed with your statement.
:)

There are various different ideas of when summer starts and ends, but
I can't find any definition that makes it 17 weeks long.  At most 15,
usually 13-14.   I can see making summer and winter longer than spring
and autumn rather than equal quarters, but a factor of two difference
in length seems excessive.

--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[Christopher Vance-8]

You really got it wrong.

Summer starts in December and lasts until February.
It's winter that starts in June, and it only lasts until August.

By definition I am part of 'everyone' and am therefore a counter example.

-- Christopher

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 6:35 AM, MIKE OSSIPOFF<nkklrp@...> wrote:

> Mark asked:
>
> So why are North and South twice as long as Northward and Southward?
>
> I reply:
>
> Because, in the perceptions of everyone in the north and south temperate regions, summer arrives with June and lasts into September. The lengths derive from combining the June 1 start with the average timelag. We've discussed that thoroughly
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
> http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009
>

--
Christopher Vance

[Karl Palmen]

Dear Mike and Calendar People

I comment on this introductory section below.

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
[mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of MIKE OSSIPOFF
Sent: 27 June 2009 21:33
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Vol.I, fixed Subjective Seasonal Calendar

 
General:  
 
I'd like a calendar whose year divisions and their names explicity refer
to the natural year that every calendar measures. Specifically, to the
seasons that we all perceive, and which are what meaningfully
characterize different parts of the year.  
 
Nearly eveywhere in the north and south temperate regions, it's possible
for a single calendar to represent the seasons fairly well.  
 
Anyway, the mere effort to make that representation gives a calendar
meaning and unarbitrariness that it wouldn't otherwise have, even if, in
some places, the seasonal lag differs from the calendar's usual midrange
lag.  
 
I stipulate the following things: The seasonal divisions should be
consistent with people's expressed perceptions about the times of the
year's seasons, as best those expressed perceptions have been heard.  
 
In particular: Because many have said and written, over a long time and
in diverse regions, that the high north declination season arrives with
June, and that the high south declination season arrives with December.
The north season, "North" should begin on "Gregorian" June 1 for
nonfixed versions; and, for fixed calendars, North's beginning should
correspond to a solar ecliptic longitude as close as possible to the
average solar ecliptic longitude for June 1 during the the leapyear
cycle during which the calendar comes into use, or else the 2004-2008
leapyear cycle. (Below suggest specific rules).  
 
The calendar's seasonal divisions should be reasonably consistent with
an estimate of the usual midrange or mean seasonal timelag. I've found
that usual midrange to be about 1.25 months, and I stipulate that as the
lag for the calendar's seasonal divisions to be reasonably consistent
with, unless someone finds a better extimate.  That's loosely worded. I
give specific detailed suggestions below.
 
I emphasize that the above qualifies as a proposal, but not a completely
specified one. I will specify some suggested details below. They are
suggestions, not stipulations.

KARL SAYS: I disagree.
It's a set of requirements that Mike wants any proposal to fit in with.
Even with other rules they would be of no use in determining what date
it is in a particular proposed calendar. However they may be used to
test a proposal to see whether it is of the type required.

There is one statement that if slightly modified could form a rule a of
a proposed calendar " North's beginning should correspond to a solar
ecliptic longitude as close as possible to the average solar ecliptic
longitude for June 1 during the leap year cycle during which the
calendar comes into use, or else the 2004-2008 leap year cycle."
As stated, this is not a calendar rule. But the following could be
"North's beginning is the day whose 00:00 UT is closest to the solar
ecliptic longitude <specific value>", where <specific value> is the
result of a calculation of the average solar ecliptic longitude for June
1 00:00 UT during the leap year cycle during which the calendar comes
into use, or else the 2004-2008 leap year cycle.

Mike's statement that the introduction qualifies as a proposal is a bit
like claiming that the statement that this proposed voting system
minimises wasted votes is part of a specification of a voting system.

I may comment on specific proposals later on.
All I'll say now is that they seem to be complete in their own right
(without this introduction).

Karl

10(10(07
 

--
Scanned by iCritical.