.
. . just getting starting here
with a few printable examples of articles published in the Journal
of Calendar Reform between 1930 - 1955.
Past
study and rejection of plans other than The World Calendar have
not stopped slight reformatting before renaming themselves for
presentation as "new". Since their promoters do not
mention this, or their specific disadvantages, here are some conveniently
forgotten reasons to dismiss them as serious competition.
“…The
13-month plan makes demands that are altogether too radical. It
would lose all approximate correspondence with comparable dates
in our present calendar, would introduce a new month, would be
based on an indivisible unit of calculation (13), would offend
the superstitious, etc. Today, the 13-month calendar is hardly
mentioned, since it was definitely rejected by the League of Nations
authorities entrusted with the study of calendar reform proposals.
The same is true of intercalary week or month schemes.”
-- From The National Catholic Almanac, 1947. Holy Name College,
Washington, D. C. (Reprinted in Journal of Calendar Reform, Vol.
17 pg. 45)
OCCASIONAL
LEAP-WEEKS NOT PRACTICAL .PDF
Posted 22 May 2006
"Two
of the major defects are, first, the disregard of the annual seasons,
integral parts of the calendar, and secondly, the exclusive emphasis
upon one particular time unit—the week—at the expense
of the other time-periods of which the calendar is composed."
LEAP-WEEK
DISCUSSION .PDF
Posted 12 June 2006
"In 1931, the League of Nations, after full
consideration, issued a report on calendar reform in which this
particular device was described as “inferior to the existing
calendar.” It was added that such a plan ”cannot be
considered at all.” "
.PDF
files require Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Download it free
from Adobe's
site.
Cursor
and
magnification tools _
# %_ _
help guide
the views.
HOME
|