Xref: utzoo comp.text:2342 comp.std.internat:399
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!killer!dcs!wnp
From: wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul)
Newsgroups: comp.text,comp.std.internat
Subject: Re: All numeric representation of dates
Message-ID: <189@dcs.UUCP>
Date: 30 Aug 88 04:51:21 GMT
References: <187@dcs.UUCP> <2896@hubcap.UUCP>
Reply-To: wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul)
Organization: DCS, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 40

In article <2896@hubcap.UUCP> wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
>From article <187@dcs.UUCP>, by wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul):
>> 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.
>
>     Yes, I can read.  But familiarity does not imply that a system
>     is in any sense optimal.  If that were true, there would be no
>     point in converting to the metric system... 

There probably isn't, not for the little old lady shopping for groceries,
and not in a lot of other situations. If and when we convert to the metric
system, it won't be because it's optimal for every application, but because
it's simpler to have just one system worldwide.

>> Besides, what are you trying to do to Henry? 
>
>      To point out that when an international standard exists which
>      is clearly superior to the one currently in use, that standard
>      should be ADOPTED and not opposed because "we've done it this
>      way for the last 2 zillion years, and we haven't the sense to change".

"Clearly superior" depends on the situation and application. For much of human
interaction, alpha-numeric dates are clearly superior to all-numeric dates,
simply because human beings are not computers or calculators.

I don't think you understand our motives for not blindly accepting anything
anybody sets up as a "standard", international or otherwise. It's not because
we've always done it this way, it's because for some purposes, the "standard"
is less than optimal, and there's nothing to be gained by adopting the standard.

>      (Not a direct quote, but a basic summary of the position).

No -- your (erroneous) interpretation of the position, and it illustrates 
your obnoxious attitude. I didn't reply to your initial article (or to this one)
because I want to crusade against ISO standards, but because I dislike your toneand attitude.
-- 
Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101
UUCP:     killer!dcs!wnp                 ESL: 62832882
DOMAIN:   dcs!wnp@killer.dallas.tx.us    TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD