Re: The Phaistos Disc

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Sat Apr 01 2006 - 13:18:38 CST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "RE: The Phaistos Disc"

    Elliotte Harold <elharo at metalab dot unc dot edu> wrote:

    > Did you mean to say that the UTC does *not* reject proposals, or that
    > it sometimes does but not in this case? If the former, a word is
    > missing. If the latter, this seems unnecessary, and reads a little
    > funny. In that case, I suggest just deleting this sentence.

    He meant the latter, that the UTC does reserve the option to reject a
    proposal, and they did not do so in this case.

    > If the disc is encoded at this time, are those properties then set in
    > stone? Could we change them later?

    Ha ha, I get it. "Set in stone."

    > Perhaps most importantly, should I be worried that you posted this on
    > April 1? :-)

    I thought he was joking last year when he proposed INVERTED INTERROBANG,
    in a proposal form with "2005-04-01" sprinkled all over the place -- in
    bold even -- but it's been approved by UTC.

    Doug Ewell
    Fullerton, California, USA

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 01 2006 - 13:20:04 CST