|
|
Post by stlvufan on Jul 8, 2009 12:27:50 GMT -5
at least for those in the central time zone  You do have to fudge a bit to make it work, but I figure when it really happened, nobody noticed, so we can notice it for them. |
|
|
|
Post by ValpoHoops on Jul 8, 2009 12:56:29 GMT -5
I think we need to get you some help.... |
|
|
|
Post by valpofan56 on Jul 8, 2009 13:47:52 GMT -5
at least for those in the central time zone You do have to fudge a bit to make it work, but I figure when it really happened, nobody noticed, so we can notice it for them. ? |
|
|
|
Post by ValpoHoops on Jul 8, 2009 14:34:14 GMT -5
12:34:56, 7/8/09...
|
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Jul 8, 2009 16:00:47 GMT -5
Well, 7/8/9, actually But, correct! It's a perfectly ordered digit-al moment! |
|
|
|
Post by vuweathernerd on Jul 8, 2009 16:17:08 GMT -5
it'd be perfectly ordered if we were in a year ending 90. hence the slight fudging.
|
|
|
|
Post by valpofan56 on Jul 8, 2009 16:31:36 GMT -5
I see. Guess I don't have enough time on my hands . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Jul 8, 2009 17:19:56 GMT -5
it'd be perfectly ordered if we were in a year ending 90. hence the slight fudging. That's true, too. But I was thinking more of the year 9, which would be a perfectly ordered non-zero digit-al moment |
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Jul 8, 2009 17:23:18 GMT -5
|
|
You do have to fudge a bit to make it work, but I figure when it really happened, nobody noticed, so we can notice it for them.