Re: [s-d] Regarding era-nomenclature controversies

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Elliott Hird <
penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 3 Dec 2008, at 21:21, Craig Daniel wrote:
>
> > Two emergencies in an nweek seems a little silly for a time to
> > subdivide eras. The crises that prompted the transition to era 5 are
> > bigger, but still seem small compared to the five-month lulls that
> > ended A Nomic and the Second Era or the crash that prompted the Second
> > Era to begin. But retroactively declaring that all those 4E rule
> > numbers referred to the Third Era as Wooble protoproposed seems silly.
>
> I dislike the ATS- prefix.


Indeed, too long. Also, I've been thinking having an official Historian
would be nice. I also have no idea what happened during the second era.
Maybe one day I'll even have no idea what happened during the 4th era. And
it would be nice to somehow preserve that in, you know, English.

Anyone interested? Warrigal?

BP
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss