American date format - why, god, why?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Is there a rational for writing dates mm/dd/yyyy?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 16 January 2003 16:05 (twenty-two years ago)

so that they file in order. it does make sense really

― gareth (gareth), Thursday, 16 January 2003 16:07 (twenty-two years ago)

yyyy-mm-dd

mm/dd/yyyy = Mmuary DDth YYYY

― Graham (graham), Thursday, 16 January 2003 16:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Next you're going to be telling us about how we should be using the metric system.

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Thursday, 16 January 2003 16:10 (twenty-two years ago)

What do you mean, so it files in order, it's the WRONG order!

― Sarah (starry), Thursday, 16 January 2003 16:10 (twenty-two years ago)

But you don't say January 16th, you say the 16th of January!

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 16 January 2003 16:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Hmmmm... we do say January 16th.

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Thursday, 16 January 2003 16:17 (twenty-two years ago)

everyone should be made to write the date as YY/MM/DD from now on for true easier ordering

i am pioneering this radical method and i hope you join me. of course it only works from the 21st century onwards...but thats a negligible flaw compared to mm/dd/yy if you ask me.

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 16 January 2003 16:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Month / Day / Year = Medium / small / large

Day / Month / Year = Small / Medium / Large

― Alex M, Thursday, 16 January 2003 16:17 (twenty-two years ago)

btw, i initally thought this thread was going to be about 'putting out too soon'

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 16 January 2003 16:18 (twenty-two years ago)

(yy)yy/mm/dd = scando format

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 January 2003 16:24 (twenty-two years ago)

everyone should be made to write the date as YY/MM/DD from now on for true easier ordering

i am pioneering this radical method and i hope you join me.

It's hardly radical; although you should use a four-digit year really. Graham mentioned it upthread, and it's often used for computery things.

― caitlin (caitlin), Thursday, 16 January 2003 16:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Y2K bug to thread!

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Thursday, 16 January 2003 16:30 (twenty-two years ago)

yyyy-mm-dd = classic for computers, dud for ordinary use.

And as Sarah said, mm/dd/yy doesn't really sort well - or it does but only up until the end of the year.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 16 January 2003 16:32 (twenty-two years ago)

fucking yanks, screwing it up for everyone AGAIN.

at this stage, maybe we would all be better off if we were all talking German or Russian.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 16 January 2003 16:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Regardless of format I am always on the white man's time.

[It should go yyyy/mm/dd of course.]

― Andy K (Andy K), Thursday, 16 January 2003 16:46 (twenty-two years ago)

I am with Andy. That way an alphabetical sort of the dates orders them correctly too.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 16 January 2003 16:52 (twenty-two years ago)

The rational is simple: when you write out a date, you write it like this "Month Day, Year" - for example, "January 16, 2003". So if you abbreviate it to a numerical form, it makes sense to keep the same ordering: "mm/dd/yyyy" or "1/16/2003". It makes it more natural to read the numerical form, because you can easily convert it mentally back to the written-out form. You convert the first number to the month then you add the day and year. In order to read the European format, you have to skip ahead and read the second number first, then come back to the first number, and finally skip to the 3rd number, unless you say something awkward like "the 16th of January, 2003", which is slightly verbose (ie., the extra "the" and "of").

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 16 January 2003 17:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, well that's the way we say it here. Maybe we are verbose but it trips off the tongue easily enough.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 16 January 2003 17:02 (twenty-two years ago)

only americans write dates like that, o. nate. Here we would write "16th January, 2003".

it makes sense to do the date in an order where it goes consistently up or down from left to right - yyyy-mm-dd or dd-mm-yyyy .

― DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 16 January 2003 17:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, I guess if you always write and say dates that way (Day Month, Year) then the numerical form (dd/mm/yy) would follow naturally. However, in the US (probably because of habit and custom more than anything else) we say it the other way. So the other form seems more natural to us. As far as consistently ordering from large to small or small to large, that only makes a difference for computers, and in that case ordering from large to small is the only version that's useful, and the European ordering is from small to large, so I think that's a moot point.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 16 January 2003 17:07 (twenty-two years ago)

I pretty much go by aesthetics: I like the look of "16 Jan 03" and the way the letters neatly separate the numbers.

So long as we're being all logical about it, though, you guys are sort of wrong when you count date as a "smaller" unit than month. Well, I mean, you're sort of right -- saying "16th" narrows the date down to 12 possible days of the year, whereas saying "January" narrows it down to 31 possibilities. But starting with the month is more specific insofar as it describes a discrete period of time, and then the date specifies a particular division of that time.

In that sense the month is "smaller" -- January tells me it's in January, whereas "16th" could be anywhere in the year at all. This is why when someone asks you what time it is you say it's 3:45 and not 45:3.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 16 January 2003 17:55 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean, which makes more sense:

(a) "It's somewhere in the month of January ... it's the 16th day of that month!"

(b) "It's the 16th day of any one of twelve months ... and that month is January!"

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 16 January 2003 17:57 (twenty-two years ago)

That's a good point, Nabisco - I hadn't thought about it that way. I think that's part of why the American usage seems more natural to me. You could argue, then that putting the year first would make it even more logical. However, that overlooks the fact that usually in everyday life when you are talking about date you know what year you're talking about (the current one) so it makes sense to leave the year for last.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 16 January 2003 18:03 (twenty-two years ago)

It's the first month of any one of an infinite number of years.

― Paul in Santa Cruz (Paul in Santa Cruz), Thursday, 16 January 2003 18:04 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't know about you guys, but when I'm looking through the old filing cabinet, I look for two things: MONTH and YEAR. To me it is perfectly logical that the least important thing is in the middle, rather than at the front where it seems most important. It's the 24th, yay! Just one of 31 days in a whole month.

The american system seems to make sense of relative importance: first you look for the month or year and then you look for the day, which falls somewhere in the middle as a matter of importance to locating a file.

― Scaredy Cat, Thursday, 16 January 2003 18:13 (twenty-two years ago)

There is an official international standard (officially ignored by just about everyone) that specifies YYYY-MM-DD as the way forward. Nice idea (but then so was the decimal calendar...)

― Minky Starshine (Minky Starshine), Thursday, 16 January 2003 18:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Well let's be reasonable here: for most non-archival everyday applications -- say, the piece of paper that I just proofread and dated and passed along -- the year is pretty much immaterial. I think it can safely go last: it just means that when you're interested in something spanning several years you look on the right side of the date (basically the equivalent of zooming out on a computer window) to see it on that new scale. But for the most part I, ever the good American, think month/day (year assumed): it is January and it is the 16th day of it. It is the 12 o'clock hour and 47 minutes into it. I am on the fourth floor and in cube 474 -- and that's exactly the way I'd notate it, I imagine, 4th floor (month), #474 (day), press building (year).

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 16 January 2003 18:48 (twenty-two years ago)

I switched from U.K.- to U.S.-style dates, against my actual preference, just because the former system was confusing to my colleagues (here in the U.S.). Before I gave up on dd/mm/yy, I went through a brief period of putting the month in roman numerals (so today would be 16-I-03, although for aesthetic reasons I think 16-I-2003 looks even better). Then I decided this was too weird.

― Paul in Santa Cruz (Paul in Santa Cruz), Thursday, 16 January 2003 19:07 (twenty-two years ago)

America strikes again! Give it up chrono-geeks, you will accomodate our frivolous and illogical time format! How will we inconvenience the world next?! Muwahahaha!

― Christopher Cprek (cprek), Thursday, 16 January 2003 19:29 (twenty-two years ago)

you pesky varmints! why i oughta...

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 16 January 2003 20:40 (twenty-two years ago)

to wit, nothing bad has happened to me because of misunderstanding some date in another format. don't blow it out of proportion

i write "uk-style" dates on diaryland, probably because its on the internet (global-stylee), and there's more people who see dates that way in this world.

― ron (ron), Thursday, 16 January 2003 20:48 (twenty-two years ago)

You're all very big and clever while reasonable people are sleeping.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 16 January 2003 23:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Nothing related to timekeeping is as stupid as the hour leading up to 1:00 being 12, instead of 0. (Or, if you insist on starting with 1, incrementing the day an hour before the hour count rolls over.) (Using a hacked version of the Roman calendar when the clearly superior Egyptian calendar predates even the worst version of the Roman one by over 2000 years comes in as the second dumbest.)

― Dave Fischer, Friday, 17 January 2003 01:03 (twenty-two years ago)

"...Incrementing the day an hour before the hour count rolls over," eh Dave? You have a way of writing english that is amazingly foreign to me! I didn't understand anything in this paragraph except that 1 does not logically follow 12... but does 0 logically follow 11?

― Scaredy Cat, Friday, 17 January 2003 02:23 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought he was arguing for a base-ten time system. Personally I think it's sort of fun to get to think in other bases every now and then.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 17 January 2003 02:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Just say it's been x number of times since the day ball sank.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 17 January 2003 03:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Nabisco, no-one over 20 says 3:45 anyway - they say a quarter to four. It's only the kids who can't read an analogue clock who would say three forty five.

― toraneko (toraneko), Friday, 17 January 2003 03:21 (twenty-two years ago)

People say 3:45 all the time. Quarter-to and quarter-after are just a little more popular than half-past with people not-quite middle age. It's the old-timers that prefer phrases to digits (especially since most people get the time during the day by looking at their digital readout on the computer screen).

Also, Nabisco, it seemed like he was talking about a base-ten system, but he didn't specifically state it, so I didn't want to assume anything... but does 0 logically follow 9?

― Scaredy Cat, Friday, 17 January 2003 03:48 (twenty-two years ago)

At midnight we move on to the next day. But the hour keeps going up for another hour, before it drops back down to 1. Those two things should happen at the same time. It doesn't really matter if you count from 0 to 11, or 1 to 12, but when you move on to the next day, your hour should reset. Just like when you move on to the next hour, your minutes reset.

― Dave Fischer, Friday, 17 January 2003 03:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Same with ages - like the Chinese do it where when you're born you're one.

― toraneko (toraneko), Friday, 17 January 2003 04:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Ah, I get it now. Yeah, why don't we do that? It doesn't make sense that the first minute that passes every day is 12:01. It should be 1:01.

What's that new "swatch time" Swatch made? It was some internet world time based on "beats", I think.

― Scaredy Cat, Friday, 17 January 2003 04:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually the first minute of every day is 0001. When it's time to get off work it's usually 1700. Dates are always indicated DD MMM YY or DD MMM YYYY, as in 12 JAN 03 or 16 APR 78.

I don't know what world you guys live in. Geez.

― Tom Millar (Millar), Friday, 17 January 2003 04:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh yeah - I forgot about that. "Military time" solves my complaint.

― Dave Fischer, Friday, 17 January 2003 05:13 (twenty-two years ago)

and you get to say stuff like 'oh dark thirty'

― Tom Millar (Millar), Friday, 17 January 2003 05:14 (twenty-two years ago)

"dark"?

― Dave Fischer, Friday, 17 January 2003 05:33 (twenty-two years ago)

0030 in the morning, weird US Army slang

― Tom Millar (Millar), Friday, 17 January 2003 05:38 (twenty-two years ago)

I like it.
My favourite weird calendar is the original Roman calendar: ten thirty day months, and a sixty-five day period that "didn't count".

― Dave Fischer, Friday, 17 January 2003 05:43 (twenty-two years ago)

oh dark thirty = a good time for a little pre-dawn maneuvering!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 17 January 2003 06:24 (twenty-two years ago)

PS: at first I thought this thread was going to be about dating.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 17 January 2003 06:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Skipping 13 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

Ally & Chris's posts make no sense to me.

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Friday, 12 December 2003 18:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I think I need to see ScaredyCat's filing cabinet before I can make my call.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 12 December 2003 18:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, I don't understand my last post. Could someone please explain it?

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Friday, 12 December 2003 19:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Today is 12DEC03.

― El Spinktor (El Spinktor), Friday, 12 December 2003 19:07 (twenty-one years ago)

My new format suggestion: KS/THS/ASS

― donut bitch (donut), Friday, 12 December 2003 19:09 (twenty-one years ago)

What???? Really??? Why????

― Ajazay, Friday, 12 December 2003 19:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Scaredy Cat's argument makes no sense because if you're looking for month and year, why would you look for them at opposite ends of the date?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 12 December 2003 20:03 (twenty-one years ago)

For fun.

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Friday, 12 December 2003 20:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Um, because it's easier to see information at the start or end of a line of text than it is to see it in the middle. Didn't you ever learn the $10/25¢/$20 rule of writing? I'm sure there's non-$ equivalents but basically the start of a sentence is worth $10, the middle is worth 25 cents, and the ending is worth $20 -- as far as how much attention gets paid to it, how easy it is to "read". That's why you want to put the most important point of your sentence in the last word. (And why brochure language often ends with this kind of sentence: You. Because after the colon that's like an entire sentence in one word plus it acts as the end of the other sentence making it worth about $50 and change.)

― Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 12 December 2003 20:07 (twenty-one years ago)

This is one of those things, like driving on the wrong side of the road or spelling 'flavour'/'centre' etc incorrectly or drinking their tea iced, that the Americans adopted just to spite the British, isn't it?

― petra jane (petra jane), Friday, 12 December 2003 20:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Hey, most of the world is in agreement with us about the road thing.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 12 December 2003 20:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I actually don't understand what, linguistically/phonetically, makes "flavour" or "centre" more correct though!

― Allyzay, Friday, 12 December 2003 20:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd say "it is the twelfth of december," maybe americans would be more likely to say "it is december twelfth." both of these are preferable to someone, american or not, saying "it is the twelth of december" or "it is december twelth."

― RJG (RJG), Friday, 12 December 2003 20:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I just pronounce flavour "flay-vower!", and centre "cen-tray!", and cheque "She-QUAY!"... just to make things more fun when I'm a tourist. COME ON LAUGH. HAW HAW HAW HAW.

― donut bitch (donut), Friday, 12 December 2003 20:15 (twenty-one years ago)

But how would you pronounce "Brett Favre"?

― Allyzay, Friday, 12 December 2003 20:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Hint, it rhymes with "flavour."

― NA (Nick A.), Friday, 12 December 2003 20:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Le Havre?

― Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 12 December 2003 20:19 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.lifeoptions.org/exercise/images/stretc3b.jpg

― NA (Nick A.), Friday, 12 December 2003 20:21 (twenty-one years ago)

i was not aware that English was a phonetically correct language.

Or shld that be 'Inglish'? and 'Fonetikly'? and, for that matter, 'langwidge'?

gah! Now i'm all confused!

― petra jane (petra jane), Friday, 12 December 2003 20:23 (twenty-one years ago)

You're the one who said it was "incorrect"--I would like to know in what way it is incorrect.

― Allyzay, Friday, 12 December 2003 20:24 (twenty-one years ago)

in the way that is isn't correct.

― RJG (RJG), Friday, 12 December 2003 20:27 (twenty-one years ago)

it isn't correct, I suppose.

― RJG (RJG), Friday, 12 December 2003 20:27 (twenty-one years ago)

That proved my point, you know.

― Allyzay, Friday, 12 December 2003 20:28 (twenty-one years ago)

― RJG (RJG), Friday, 12 December 2003 21:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Before the nineteenth century, there was no such thing as "correct" spelling, in England or anywhere else. The US separated from England in the eighteenth century, and when dictionaries in the US were put together later they followed predominant American, not British, usage.

So don't criticize! It gives the language color!

― Nemo (JND), Friday, 12 December 2003 21:10 (twenty-one years ago)

quintessential nabisco; luvvit!

― g--ff (gcannon), Friday, 12 December 2003 21:42 (twenty-one years ago)

As anyone who has received a letter from me will testify, I write dates "Month DD, YYYY" but, in a tribute to my old Chemistry teacher, scribble DDmmYY* on tape inlay and MD cards. All dates in filenames (i.e. "Song 4 - Rhythm acoustic [Hopelessly botched fade, 24bit, Akai sync] 130303.WAV") on the computer are in DDMMYY form and when I date cheques I write seconds from the Big Bang in scientific notation to three sig figs in the mantissa.

(* where mm = Month in lower-case Roman numerals; I can't remember the Oracle for that, it's been too long)

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Friday, 12 December 2003 21:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I only write my dates in hexadecimal! Booyah!

― , Friday, 12 December 2003 22:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Wait wait, I never said anything about December 12th/12th of December. I'm talking about full date format in numbers. Like someone said above, 3:45 is three forty five, or quarter of/to four, but when you write it down , it goes in one direction only.

Also clearly YYYYMMDD is acceptable. Are we not robots?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Saturday, 13 December 2003 01:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I know I am!

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Saturday, 13 December 2003 05:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I only write my dates in hexadecimal! Booyah!

I always just write the number of seconds since 1/1/1970. Much more straightforward.

― caitlin (caitlin), Saturday, 13 December 2003 12:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I write the number of picoseconds since the big bang - in binary!

As far as I'm concerned, the British system is correct (surprise surprise) because a numeric date is ordering things in a hierarchical system - hence the importance of small/medium/large, or day within month within year.

I think saying that the month, or the year, is most important, is only going to be relevant in certain ordering systems and not in others. I'm cataloguing scripts at the moment, and the writers either use a full date, month/year, year or no date. It's clear which is most useful when it comes to a number of drafts written close to each other.

― Markelby (Mark C), Saturday, 13 December 2003 14:51 (twenty-one years ago)

two years pass...

One incidental advantage of the DD/MM/YY in Europe: we get the three "special moments" of this year three months in a row!

01:02:03 04/05/06
06:06:06 06/06/06
11:10:09 08/07/06

― StanM (StanM), Sunday, 23 April 2006 08:51 (nineteen years ago)

That is QUITE the advantage. Having them occur every other month has made my year a living hell.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Sunday, 23 April 2006 15:01 (nineteen years ago)

I remember,

01:01 on 01/01/01, (There was a family in the paper, in front of the computer with the "Microsoft Clock" showing this time)

03/03/03- my dad's 50th birthday :)

22/11/00 (And on the same day I remember watching Coronation Street and Jack and Vera had a giant cheque with this date on)

9/9/99 (They thought there would be something similar to the millenium bug on this date)

― JTS (JTS), Sunday, 23 April 2006 15:35 (nineteen years ago)

i keep thinking this thread is about the banality of "dinner and a movie".

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 23 April 2006 15:38 (nineteen years ago)

Casuistry: ROFL! (of course I was only kidding with that advantage thing.)

― StanM (StanM), Sunday, 23 April 2006 18:21 (nineteen years ago)

Has anyone actually used that meaning of "date" since about 1986? It's such a "parent-y" word.....

Whenever someone says it I can only imagine a fashionable mid-80s middle class black couple, smooching away on the couch with some no-nonsense soul bubbling away in the hi-fi behind them. And then morning, her big haired friend "Susan" is on a massive purple phone screaming "So, Rayceene, how did the "date" with Brian go??? Huh?????? Huh???????? That guy is so fi-iiiiiine"

Seriously, no one uses "date" these days, do they?

― JTS (JTS), Sunday, 23 April 2006 18:29 (nineteen years ago)

to be honest, yeah, in high school i always called it a "desperate frustrated grope session" especially when asking the girls out on one.

made it feel much more casual, y'know?

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 23 April 2006 18:36 (nineteen years ago)

Marcus Kuhn has an excellent page on ISO dates, but I prefer his one on ISO paper sizes, e.g.

Technical drawing pen sizes

Technical drawing pens follow the same size-ratio principle. The standard sizes differ by a factor sqrt(2): 2.00 mm, 1.40 mm, 1.00 mm, 0.70 mm, 0.50 mm, 0.35 mm, 0.25 mm, 0.18 mm, 0.13 mm. So after drawing with a 0.35 mm pen on A3 paper and reducing it to A4, you can continue with the 0.25 mm pen. (ISO 9175-1)

AWESOME.

― caek (caek), Sunday, 23 April 2006 18:45 (nineteen years ago)

That is genius. Cleverest thing I've heard all year.

― mei (mei), Sunday, 23 April 2006 19:18 (nineteen years ago)

I'm used to most Americanisms now. I actually prefer the American date system now. My peeve:

"off of". "from" is the word.

― paulhw (paulhw), Sunday, 23 April 2006 19:30 (nineteen years ago)

I realize that most Americans actually write MM/DD/YYYY, but I can't help but think that casual usage (ie - w/o writing the year) first came out of truncating YYYY/MM/DD. That's how most people sort through dated files anyway (not that I know anyone that actually keeps dated files).

― gbx (skowly), Sunday, 23 April 2006 20:07 (nineteen years ago)

It's funny people complain about this, but it's universally accepted in all countries involved that "12" is really "0", and we have this shit called AM and PM.

AIM FOR MILITARY TIME, FULES!

― DOQQUN (donut), Sunday, 23 April 2006 21:04 (nineteen years ago)

I say "date". I am only 32.

― Miss Misery xox (MissMiseryTX), Sunday, 23 April 2006 21:37 (nineteen years ago)

then again, I'm a proponent of metricizing time such that each day is 10 metrhours of 100 metroseconds each, 10 metrodays per metromonth, of which there are 10 per metroyear.

― DOQQUN (donut), Sunday, 23 April 2006 21:42 (nineteen years ago)

Has anyone actually used that meaning of "date" since about 1986? It's such a "parent-y" word.....

Seriously, no one uses "date" these days, do they?

People most certainly do use it. All the time.

― Whispy Fandango Triphop (unclejessjess), Monday, 24 April 2006 02:12 (nineteen years ago)

why do we still insist on this 4 digit year bullplop! y10k! float that decimal!

― i aint afraid of no bug, Monday, 24 April 2006 04:48 (nineteen years ago)

"People most certainly do use it. All the time."

Hehe. I'm not denying people still use it. It just sounds "dated" (pardon the pun), and like several cheesy 80s films that can be summed up by the Susan/Rayceene/Brian triangle mentioned above. Something about "setting a date" seems so traditional and innocent, which is something missing from this era. Plus the line: "I'm late, I'm late, for a very important date" (from Disney's Robin Hood, I think??) is just gratingly annoying!!!!

Whenever me and my friends refer to a "date" we don't really use any noun, we just say "I went out with XYZ" or "I'm going to the Multiplex with XYZ tonight" or "XYZ, do you wanna go out tonight?", but that's only the perspective of a few British 17 year olds so I know it's not much to go on.

(Yes, that XYZ has been through everyone)

― JTS (JTS), Monday, 24 April 2006 12:11 (nineteen years ago)

Back on track, using the year first reminds me of the "Kremvax hoax", my favourite April Fool joke:

Well, today, 840401, this is at last the Socialist Union of Soviet
Republics joining the Usenet network and saying hallo to everybody.

One reason for us to join this network has been to have a means of
having an open discussion forum with the American and European people
and making clear to them our strong efforts towards attaining peaceful
coexistence between the people of the Soviet Union and those of the
United States and Europe.

We have been informed that on this network many people have given strong
anti-Russian opinions, but we believe they have been misguided by their
leaders, especially the American administration, who is seeking for war
and domination of the world.

By well informing those people from our side we hope to have a possibility
to make clear to them our intentions and ideas.

Some of those in the Western world, who believe in the truth of what we
say have made possible our entry on this network; to them we are very
grateful. We hereby invite you to freely give your comments and opinions.

Here are the data for our backbone site:

Name: moskvax
Organization: Moscow Institute for International Affairs
Contact: K. Chernenko
Phone: +7 095 840401
Postal-Address: Moscow, Soviet Union
Electronic-Address: mcvax!moskvax!kremvax!chernenko
News: mcvax kremvax kgbvax
Mail: mcvax kremvax kgbvax

And now, let's open a flask of Vodka and have a drink on our entry on
this network. So:

NA ZDAROVJE!

People actually believed this. Gotta dig that "KGBvax" :)

― JTS (JTS), Monday, 24 April 2006 12:15 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.