Subject:
            Re: Appropriate the 33 year calendar!
      Date:
            Sat, 12 Oct 1996 11:58:53 -0700
      From:
            Simon Cassidy <simoncas@pacbell.net>
        To:
            CALNDR-L@ECUVM1.BITNET

Daiajo Tibdixious MACS wrote:

> Good point, keeping the horses door ready, but no horse. :)

Yep! In one sense the real horse has already bolted! We have been following
the new Common Era Leap Year Decision Procedure since 1981 and will continue
for the next score of years, at least. Pass the mathemagic around for twenty
years and who knows, maybe people will forget Gregory's rule by 2016!

The legal proclamation is just a matter of opening the illusory barn door
and allowing "the name of the horse" to join its referent.

In another sense the "illuminati" have been following Dee's calendar
prescription for the last four hundred years (whether they like it or not).

As Dee, and the initiated, were able to calculate, immediately the Vatican
went public with its Leap Year rule in February 1582, The Gregorian calendar
and the "Anni-Domini" calendar intersect exactly, at midnight September 19th,
1799 C.E., local time for their instantaneously identical calendrical prime
meridians, which happened to be at the 77th. degree west of Queen Elizabeth's
palace at Greenwich; viz. the  just-completed first wing of the rising Capitol
building in the budding federal city of Washington D.C., where 6 years earlier,
to the day, our boy George had led the Freemasons of America in the only known
public exhibition of a secret society's succeesful foundation of a national
Capitol, while laying the cornerstone of that very building.

George was at pains to explain over the next 6 years, waiting for the
Capitol's completion, that the Illuminati had nothing to do with it!
On the date when realities collided however, George's diary records him at
home tending his dear sick Martha, and he died himself just a few months
later. Who did gather, then, that midnight, in the newly marbled halls,
for their "school-of-night" celebration of hidden victory over the pompous
shopkeepers and puritans?

Perhaps it was a group of "grey-eyed" tri-racial mongrels, fresh up from
the Great Dismal Swamp, for a peek and a poke at the ruling classes new
pretensions; anglo-cum-croatan-cum-negroes with names like White, Dare and
Ellis?
(try http://www.l0pht.com/~sputnik/taz/taz3.html and Find "Dee", case matched)

> >Its magic!
>
> I hate these little mysteries. :)
>
> >No seriously, the layman's Decision Procedure is just
> >casting out 99s and then casting out one or two 33s at the end.
>
> That last step is straight forward. Its how you can add digits and preserve
> modulo that puzzles me.
>
> >A little bit of mathemagic is more readily remembered and passed on if
> >the receiver can easily perform the trick himself, and amaze his friends.
>
> Good point. Not being able to explain it could be embarrassing tho. :)
>

100 = 1(modulo 99).

> >I thus repeat the mathematicians formulation:
> >February will have 29 days whenever,
> >the C.E. year-number, reduced modulo 33, is non-zero and divisible by 4.
>
> I remember that now, I'll stick with this.

Since I wish to be consistent with my neglect of "names", and so posterity
is not hampered when fiddling further with their solar calendar(s), I would
proffer a more general mathematicians/astronomer's formulation to read:
"A solar calendar year will contain 365 days except when the year-number
modulo 33 is non-zero and divisible by 4, in which case, that calendar year
will have 366 days."

>
> All this complexity keeping step with the solar year is reason for using a
> non-aligned year, and just letting the seasons wonder. It would be testimony
> to our level of sophistication if we could live that way. (I don't expect we
> could.)

Apparently the ancient Egyptians did.

> >N.B. Our magical LIST-SERVER or some entity in its jurisdiction ended up
> >making the "Reply To" field of Daiajo's message become his personal email
> >address (when it got to me) instead of the groups address (in EastCarolina).
> >I have thus had to manually replace the "Mail To" field in this message with
> >"CALNDR-L@ECUVM1.BITNET" to ensure that our group discussion does not
> >splinter off into one-on-one private babbling.
>
> I have noticed this too, at random with other people's mail.
> It hasn't occured for any messages I've read for some time now.
> I hope its not something to do with my messy return address.
> Anyone have any hints?

It happened again with this message! Maybe our magical apollonian LIST
-SERVER doesn't want us two discussing such dionysian secrets so openly!

--
Yours, Simon Cassidy, 1053 47th.St. Emeryville Ca.94608, USA. ph.510-547-0684.