🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <187@dcs.UUCP>, by wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul):
> In article <2882@hubcap.UUCP> billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
>>From article <1988Aug28.010835.17290@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
>>     Ah, I see... Tell me, do you think your odometer should present
>>     the last two digits first, then some verbal representation of
...
>>     If not, then why should a chronometer be any different??
> 
> Can you read? Henry argued from the FAMILIARITY of the month names versus
> numbers. If you can tell me of one place where the scheme you describe is 
> more FAMILIAR to folks than an all-numeric mileage, then fine. If you can't,
> stop using silly, contrived examples.

If he is talking of the article I'm thinking of, the guy called the
all-numeric representation STUPID (with, I believe, caps).  He argued that
the ANR is stupid and that other orderings MAKE MORE SENSE, as opposed to
being more familiar.
to quote:
))> I also question the human engineering of forms that put the year first.
))> ....   The most important information should be first.  For most
))> uses of dates, that is the day number, followed by the month.
 
  One thing I'd like to point out is that, in Canada, we have a problem
because there are TWO common methods in use: The Canadian method and the
American method. (don't ask which is which..)
  One goes: mm dd yy
  the other: dd mm yy
    It can be reall fun trying to tell the difference between Jan 8/88 (010888
and 1st Aug /88  (010888).  At LEAST with the new method, YOU CAN TELL THE
(&'$#%!) DIFFERENCE!!!!!
(at lest until 2001, that is, and I hope we'll be used to the new method
by then)

-- 
-------------
Stephen Samuel 	  (userzxcv@ualtamts.bitnet   or  alberta!edm!steve)
MS-DOS : CPM impersonates UNIX   **    OS/2 : IBM impersonates APPLE