[Guest]

Maybe one of our mathematically minded OTers can help me: this is
the 110th Congress; and the whole USian circus got rolling around
1776 ISTR; and this is 2006/7; and each modern Congress lasts two
years. Where are the missing ones? Were they extra-longlasting?
Maybe all of that pork-barrel fudging squiffed somebody's maths?
--
Andrew Stephenson

 

[Guest]

> Andrew Stephenson <[email protected]> queried:
>> Maybe one of our mathematically minded OTers can help me: this is
>> the 110th Congress; and the whole USian circus got rolling around
>> 1776 ISTR; and this is 2006/7; and each modern Congress lasts two
>> years. Where are the missing ones? Were they extra-longlasting?
>> Maybe all of that pork-barrel fudging squiffed somebody's maths?
>
Cathy F. <[email protected]> answered:
> I haven't stopped to do the math, but... G. Washington wasn't President
> until 1789 (even though things generally got rolling earlier), so maybe
> that's where the disparity is?

Yup, the so-called American Revolution, perhaps called King George's War
in the UK (?) lasted thru 1783. The Paris peace accord was January 1784.

Then the Articles of Confederation, from 1787-1789, preceded the current
US Constitution. The first Congress based on the current Constitution
convened in New York City, but was unable to achieve a quorum in March,
since most members were still traveling. Quorum was reached April 1789.

Since then there would be 2007 - 1789 = 218 / 2 = 109 congresses, but the
first Congress was in session only a year before a quick election in 1790.

(I'm only posting OT because it's you, Andrew.)

 

[Guest]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Andrew Stephenson) wrote:

> Maybe one of our mathematically minded OTers can help me: this is
> the 110th Congress; and the whole USian circus got rolling around
> 1776 ISTR; and this is 2006/7; and each modern Congress lasts two
> years. Where are the missing ones? Were they extra-longlasting?
> Maybe all of that pork-barrel fudging squiffed somebody's maths?

Let's see, when did we whip the British? Let's us start with that.
--

 

[Guest]

In article <[email protected]>,
"gwsneo" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Well, for sure it wasn't in the War of 1812...

Could it have been earlier perhaps?


>
> " dbu," <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] (Andrew Stephenson) wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe one of our mathematically minded OTers can help me: this is
> >> the 110th Congress; and the whole USian circus got rolling around
> >> 1776 ISTR; and this is 2006/7; and each modern Congress lasts two
> >> years. Where are the missing ones? Were they extra-longlasting?
> >> Maybe all of that pork-barrel fudging squiffed somebody's maths?
> >
> > Let's see, when did we whip the British? Let's us start with that.
> > --
> >
--

 

[Guest]

In article <[email protected]> [email protected] "Bill
Tuthill" writes:
>
> Cathy F. <[email protected]> answered:
>
> > Andrew Stephenson <[email protected]> queried:
> >
> > > Maybe one of our mathematically minded OTers can help me:
> > > [...]
>
> > I haven't stopped to do the math, but... [explanation, with
> > added historical chewy bits]
>
> [explanation, with added historical crunchy bits]

Thank you both -- and all who leaped in to assist me out of my
post-colonial daze.

> (I'm only posting OT because it's you, Andrew.)

Am moved -- truly.
--
Andrew Stephenson

 

[Guest]

In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] " dbu," writes:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Andrew Stephenson) wrote:
>
> > Maybe one of our mathematically minded OTers can help me: this is
> > the 110th Congress; and the whole USian circus got rolling around
> > 1776 ISTR; and this is 2006/7; and each modern Congress lasts two
> > years. Where are the missing ones? Were they extra-longlasting?
> > Maybe all of that pork-barrel fudging squiffed somebody's maths?
>
> Let's see, when did we whip the British? Let's us start with that.

If life must be measured in conflicts, not accords, go ahead.
--
Andrew Stephenson

 

[Guest]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Andrew Stephenson) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>
> [email protected] " dbu," writes:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] (Andrew Stephenson) wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe one of our mathematically minded OTers can help me: this is
> > > the 110th Congress; and the whole USian circus got rolling around
> > > 1776 ISTR; and this is 2006/7; and each modern Congress lasts two
> > > years. Where are the missing ones? Were they extra-longlasting?
> > > Maybe all of that pork-barrel fudging squiffed somebody's maths?
> >
> > Let's see, when did we whip the British? Let's us start with that.
>
> If life must be measured in conflicts, not accords, go ahead.

Don't be so defensive, I'm just trying to establish a time-line.
--

 

[Guest]

" dbu," <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Andrew Stephenson) wrote:
>
>> Maybe one of our mathematically minded OTers can help me: this is
>> the 110th Congress; and the whole USian circus got rolling around
>> 1776 ISTR; and this is 2006/7; and each modern Congress lasts two
>> years. Where are the missing ones? Were they extra-longlasting?
>> Maybe all of that pork-barrel fudging squiffed somebody's maths?
>
> Let's see, when did we whip the British? Let's us start with that.

Nice way (said facetiously) to address the British posters...

FF a bit from the end of the Revolutionary War. Starting up a country's
gov't. took a little time, even for that illustrious batch of Founding
Fathers.

Cathy


> --
>

 

[Guest]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Cathy F." <[email protected]> wrote:

> " dbu," <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] (Andrew Stephenson) wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe one of our mathematically minded OTers can help me: this is
> >> the 110th Congress; and the whole USian circus got rolling around
> >> 1776 ISTR; and this is 2006/7; and each modern Congress lasts two
> >> years. Where are the missing ones? Were they extra-longlasting?
> >> Maybe all of that pork-barrel fudging squiffed somebody's maths?
> >
> > Let's see, when did we whip the British? Let's us start with that.
>
> Nice way (said facetiously) to address the British posters...
>
> FF a bit from the end of the Revolutionary War. Starting up a country's
> gov't. took a little time, even for that illustrious batch of Founding
> Fathers.
>
> Cathy
>
>
> > --
> >

Oh hell, don't pamper the Brits, they can jolly well take a little ribbin
--

 

[Guest]

In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] " dbu," writes:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Andrew Stephenson) wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>
> > [email protected] " dbu," writes:
> >
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > [email protected] (Andrew Stephenson) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Maybe one of our mathematically minded OTers can help me: this is
> > > > the 110th Congress; and the whole USian circus got rolling around
> > > > 1776 ISTR; and this is 2006/7; and each modern Congress lasts two
> > > > years. Where are the missing ones? Were they extra-longlasting?
> > > > Maybe all of that pork-barrel fudging squiffed somebody's maths?
> > >
> > > Let's see, when did we whip the British? Let's us start with that.
> >
> > If life must be measured in conflicts, not accords, go ahead.
>
> Don't be so defensive, I'm just trying to establish a time-line.

Ah. Truly, I was being agreeable: wondered why the use of "whip"
and whether sarkiness in my reply would be appropriate. (Should
I contrast USian track records in sundry conflicts with good old
UKian sensible management of conflicted situations?) I decided
to play nicely. Now that you protest, I can "hear" another tone
of voice in what you wrote. "Whip" would be w(h)ackiness. ;-)

All happy again.
--
Andrew Stephenson

 

[Guest]

In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] " dbu," writes:

> Oh hell, don't pamper the Brits, they can jolly well take a
> little ribbin

You know, we didn't actually _quit_, back in the 18th century.
We left You Lot alone a while, to see how you'd make out -- it
was a lot cheaper in wasted tea, for one thing. Don't make us
come Over There. ;-) (Actually, we wouldn't. The US already
has enough problems. Where possible kids should be allowed to
work out their own problems. Maybe once you have settled that
adolescent Dubya-vs-the-Rest-of-the-World fad...)
--
Andrew Stephenson