Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: aruanan
I have had this discussion before. On 2/17/08 Cheburashka asked:

"Isn’t this real time MINUS 70 years, Homer?"

I waffled:

"I have struggled with that question. I think you are correct. I guess I will change my descriptions going forward."

But then Michael81Dus chimed in with:

"I think Homer is right. It´s real time (1938) + 70 years. We should not confuse “real time” with “present time”."

I decided to go with that. The point of reference for real time is not the present but the actual time the events occurred. Or, in this case, the actual time the newspaper reported the events.

57 posted on 03/22/2008 8:29:47 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson ("I’m not liking the way the 21st Century is shaping up logic wise." - AU72)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]


To: Homer_J_Simpson
I decided to go with that. The point of reference for real time is not the present but the actual time the events occurred. Or, in this case, the actual time the newspaper reported the events.

In that case, the time at which the events occurred and the newspaper reported the events was 1938, not 1938+70. A less-ambiguous description would have been "this day in history 70 years ago."
58 posted on 03/22/2008 8:35:39 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson