Why do Americans do the date differently?
- Thread starter Rockchimp69
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Same reason we measure things in inches, feet, and yards. (12 inches=1 foot, 1 yard=3 feet. Seriously, who came up with this terrible system?).....I don't fucking know.
Thread over.Criquefreak said:
In any case, does it matter (other than the aforementioned pi day)? 03/20/1990 20/03/1990
Well gee what does that refer to March 20th, 1990.
For Westerners and Europeans it takes alittle for the brain to rewire itself temporarily to assign the correct dd/mm/yyyy format but it still works. So you take a fraction of a second longer to stare at a date. Oh noes, the world ends.
Next thing you know we're gonna be arguing whether the meter is better or the yard is better and why people use it.
Also, If it aint broke, dont fix it.
did you also know that they swapped the way the lights go on boats?Squidden said:
rest of the world.
[red-light]BOAT[green light]
USA.
[green light]BOAT[red-light]
so if its dark and your in US waters is the other boat going away or coming towards you?
Merh dont really know why we do things differently, but I really doubt that its because of some strange need to say Fuck you to the rest of the world (we use more direct methods then that). It probably has more to do with our normal vocabulary. we just like to use "the", more then "of". As in January the 1st vrs. the 1st of January.
Ohh and us not changing to this way of telling time is not the equivalence to us not switching to the metric system. Us not changing to metric is bound in retardation, cause most people dont know how many yards are in a mile. seriously fuck that system.
Ohh and us not changing to this way of telling time is not the equivalence to us not switching to the metric system. Us not changing to metric is bound in retardation, cause most people dont know how many yards are in a mile. seriously fuck that system.
I'm Canadian and I even do it that way. It's easier to remember. 01/02/03 is January/second/two thousand and three. I find it weird to go 02/01/03 because that'd be like say Second of/January/two thousand and three. I do it in the way that you would say it.
Most likely, someone decided it was better for a filing system.
Look for the year... check.
Look at the month... check.
Then look for the day.
M/D. The year still went at the end, instead of the beginning, as years change less often.
In speech, month/day/year is a lot easier to say--more fluid, that is, but it does lack the haughty nature of "the first of January, year of our Lord, two-thousand and eleven."
Look for the year... check.
Look at the month... check.
Then look for the day.
M/D. The year still went at the end, instead of the beginning, as years change less often.
In speech, month/day/year is a lot easier to say--more fluid, that is, but it does lack the haughty nature of "the first of January, year of our Lord, two-thousand and eleven."
I find that it makes more sense when said month/day/year. It dosen't roll off the toung quite as well when said 1 January, 2011 (reading it as First January, 2011), where as saying January 1, 2011 (January First, 2011) sounds better because it implies that January possesses the day in question and makes the sentence flow better. Unless you phrase it as First of January, 2011, then it makes sense. But that's just a humble Canadian's opinion on the subject.
1+ReservoirAngel said:
Although it more applies to when the nation was being formed as to differentiate themselves from their British overlords.
I will admit that ordering by M/D/Y actually puts it in order when you order your computer files by name. It's still far more logical to do D/M/Y though.
Thats how it's said over here- today is "the second of January two thousand and eleven."FalloutJack said:
I'm in Scotland. It's part of the UK. The UK is the nation that some ignorant people call "England". Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are in fact culturally diverse places, and quite often people from one of those places don't like it when you just refer to them as "English" or say "England did" stufff that actually the UK did.)
I call bollocks on this statement. I don't believe that any culture is any better than any other. I am well aware that the parts of my culture that I love dearly were the result of many cultures all influencing each other- not people forcing each other to see things their way, but people recognising that they didn't and not having it bother them. This "dream world" to which you refer happens- get your eyes away from the crap parts of the world for a few minutes and you'll see it as well.Carlston said:
I think you meant "UK" not "England", which also explains why you don't know that the next time we brought less soldiers. It went quite well to. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington)Vryyk said:
The same reason they use z's in their words when they don't need to and mis-spell colour: they're just trying to be different for the sake of it.
Or, it could be a big conspiracy created by the secret reptile government of America. I don't know.
Or, it could be a big conspiracy created by the secret reptile government of America. I don't know.
I know my geography, lad. An Irishman my heritage be. It's just I was born and raised over here in the states. And yeah, the United Kingdom isn't just England. However, by and by, it IS a significant chunk.CiB42 said:
