Re: (meteorobs) Observation Report 1/31/00|1/32/00

• To: Meteor Observing List <meteorobs@jovian.com>
• Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Observation Report 1/31/00|1/32/00
• From: "Malcolm J. Currie" <mjc@jach.hawaiidot edu>
• Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 18:47:30 -1000 (HST)
• In-Reply-To: <00b101bf6ead$a8c8e940$d010a6a5@MeteorObs>
• Reply-To: meteorobs@jovian.com
• Sender: owner-meteorobs@jovian.com

Mark Davis wrote:
> The double-date format is fine....but you should list it as Jan. 31/01.

I disagree.  It's not Jan. 01.  The Jan. 31/32 convention has been
used for many years, at least 30 to my knowledge.  You find dates like
Jan. 0 in ephemerides, so Feb. 0/1 is the alternative.

> 1/31/00|1/32/00

Yuccck!

No I'm not trying to be a surrogate George Zay. (-:

Malcolm

To UNSUBSCRIBE from the 'meteorobs' email list, use the Web form at:
http://www.tiacdot net/users/lewkaren/meteorobs/subscribe.html

• Re: (meteorobs) Observation Report 1/31/00|1/32/00
• From: Mark Davis <MeteorObs@charlestondot net>

• Re: (meteorobs) Observation Report 1/31/00|1/32/00
• From: Mark Davis <MeteorObs@charlestondot net>

• Prev: Re: (meteorobs) Observation Report 1/31/00...
• Next: Re: Tropical LMs? (was Re: (meteorobs) Re: Zodiacal light)
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread