Alan Bawden scripsit: > 1) I'm fairly sure the schedule part 0 did not intend to say 18 Oct 1008. > > Well, it was intentional when we originally drafted the announcement! > But we didn't get the announcement out when we thought we would...
Doubtless King Olaf of Sweden's attack on Estonia caused an unavoidable postponement. Or perhaps it was the succession ceremonies at the court of the Caliph of Cordoba. Or the battle between Turks and Hindus at Peshawar? Any of those would be more than enough incitement to cause a Scheme committee to temporarily forget its duties to the community. > Do you think we should move all the dates further into the future because > of that delay? Or is the reast of the schedule still reasonable? Certainly a date a thousand years in the past was *un*reasonable. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ccil.org/~cowan And now here I was, in a country where a right to say how the country should be governed was restricted to six persons in each thousand of its population. For the nine hundred and ninety-four to express dissatisfaction with the regnant system and propose to change it, would have made the whole six shudder as one man, it would have been so disloyal, so dishonorable, such putrid black treason. --Mark Twain's Connecticut Yankee _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
