From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <9front-bounces@9front.inri.net> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from 9front.inri.net (9front.inri.net [168.235.81.73]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBE5B232A9 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:04:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from wopr.sciops.net ([216.126.196.60]) by 9front; Thu Feb 15 11:02:44 -0500 2024 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sciops.net; s=20210706; t=1708012945; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=MrgL9jptmB8uxg9SpHWwM5RFAI0MdX/a8AQW/kx4NrQ=; b=0Fy5ReL9VLQsIGmhaafDrtqjnTnsuGrLtY+LgIUKO9WPtW23QtwTd/TGlDfPQ8Nch4J6K+ TLLDL/0vP7wGSHVu3Xin3XsDFPUZ+V0yXNOFPqOM1d3bjb6jKMy4JDsJJyDdHHz5d4xm14 u74MBf9+vHvGuCX4Ap9ty1SCiqMBSeU= Received: from localhost (wopr.sciops.net [local]) by wopr.sciops.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id 08af7409 for <9front@9front.org>; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 08:02:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 08:02:25 -0800 From: Kurt H Maier To: 9front@9front.org Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: 9front@9front.org References: <63ddb3cf-e5ec-47bd-a243-3670495e873f@posixcafe.org> <58FDC930F99DB7629ACF5BDD10692ED7@eigenstate.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: self-signing WEB2.0 over XML storage singleton-oriented content-driven layer Subject: Re: [9front] Re: commit 671d8daa0f2d7f067b8ab3d547adbd718da93fe9 Reply-To: 9front@9front.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 07:53:21AM -0600, Jacob Moody wrote: > > Sure, but I admit this feels a bit like a stretch. The reason the original > present tense wording bothered me was that I feel like many groups have > expanded a great deal of effort in order to no longer be called English colonies. > So referring to them as such felt disrespectful. The original does not strike > me as some commentary on modern day imperialism. > As sl mentioned, previous generations found it amusing to refer to former colonies (especially the US) as colonies. It wasn't disrespectful of the colonies but instead meant to be derisive toward the British Empire in a ha-ha-only-serious way. Another salient point is that there is no American law establishing a specific calendar; even after the Revolution, most states (either constitutionally or among their earliest statutory actions) explicitly declared adoption of British law as of a certain date, to be modified therewith by any American laws that happen to conflict or override. These 'reception statutes' basically forked what was known as common law, which is why we keep hearing about ancient British insanity when the Supreme Court is particularly desperate to legislate from the bench. I'll note however that the actual Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 does not use the word 'colonies' at all, instead referring to his Majesty's dominions and countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America, belonging or subject to the crown of Great Britain. I propse, in lieu of "England and her colonies," the message be explicit, that the program will use the calendar as described in the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 -- or if you really want to stick it to them, the British Calendar Act of 1751. khm