🚀 go-pugleaf

Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> wrote:
> On 02/01/2013 7:13 AM, Peter Brooks wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 12:25 pm, "Nick from England" <pacif...@btopenworld.com>
>> wrote:
>>> "odraudeo@ hotmail.com" <odrau...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> 
>>> news:31f7d317-dda1-4d52-a541-306f6b69d64c@d4g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...
>>> 
>>>> Ïçýñ
>>> 
>>> I used to put 'the 21st. August 2013', but I was told at college last
>>> February I should put '21 Aug 2013' and that the former was "*so*
>>> old-fashioned" :-D
>>> 
>> I thought people did it because they didn't know any better, not
>> because they thought it was modern!
>> 
>> When I turn on the radio occasionally, I hear advertisements saying
>> that something is going to happen on 'twenty January' - I think they
>> find it difficult to get actors who can pronounce the 'th', so they
>> just give up and leave it out. Actors who can speak properly are, no
>> doubt, much more expensive, so you can understand them going for the
>> cheaper option.
>> 
> 
> I like the form 2013-01-01 because in Canada I sometimes see the US
> version and sometimes the UK one and get confused.
> 
> So I confuse everyone who is unfamiliar with the version I prefer instead.

Well done. A worthy aim.

-- 
Rob's iPad