From: Len Cole (leonard.cole_at_verizon.net)
Date: Sun Nov 02 2003 - 12:26:15 PST
Sorry. The temptation's too great...
Simply because someone somewhere is using a quill pen doesn't make the quill pen not obsolete.
On November 02 2003, Peter Cameron <pdwc_at_sympatico.ca> wrote:
>on 02/11/03 7:16 AM, DJ Vollkasko at DJ_Vollkasko_at_gmx.net wrote:
>> pls. allow me to most respectfully recommend this link to your esteemed
>> attention:
> Wouldn't this depend on the definition of obsolete.
>
>Definition:
>
>1.
>\Ob"so*lete\, a. [L. obsoletus, p. p. of obsolescere.
>See {Obsolescent}.]
>1. No longer in use; gone into disuse; disused; neglected;
> as, an obsolete word; an obsolete statute; -- applied
> chiefly to words, writings, or observances.
>
> We're still using our Newtons, hence they are not obsolete.
>
>2. (Biol.) Not very distinct; obscure; rudimental;
> imperfectly developed; abortive.
>
> Again, I don't think anything Newton could qualify.
>
-- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries List FAQ/Etiquette/Terms: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 02 2003 - 15:00:00 PST