(WShoots1) wrote in news:20031111222456.16483.00000029@mb-
m23.aol.com:

Oops. I re-read my post. You are right.


I've never seen a Roman numeral clock without an VIII, either. G

Bill, KVBY



--
Never say never.
Nothing is absolute.

elfa wrote in
:

This I never heard, but sounds interesting.



There are also clocks that have the numbers facing backwards with the
hands that turn backwards. They're for barbershops so the patron can
see the time by looking at a reflection of it in the mirror.

elfa

Michael Moore wrote in news:Ho96D2.Do5@campus-news-
reading.utoronto.ca:

I see that I have much to learn.



Although the IIII may add to symmetry of clock dials, this form of the
number does have historical precedent going back to the early Romans,
Etruscans, and the Hittites -- same for using VIIII for 9 (an 'additive'
system was a constant in early Roman numeration). The IV form (a
'subtractive' system) was probable adopted later. Consider for example
that it was not until the middle of the fifteenth century that the first
documented cases of the use of IX for 9 occur. The first use of the IV
was noted in the Middle Ages (?).

--
M2

"Sol": Apparently my Word isn't set to correct Roman numerals.

LOL

Thanks to Michael for that "subtractive" thing. I'd never thought of that,
either.

Although I'd learned the subtractive version in school, I recall always seeing
the additive Roman 4s and 9s on old clocks, clocks older than I am. G
Involving the subtractive versions does seem to make it harder for me to read
some large Roman numeral numbers, like copyright dates.

Bill, K5BY

In article , pierrot51
@hotmail.com says...
I have two very good digital tuning shortwave radios, one with synchronous
sideband, but I find myself choosing to play with and listen to the little
analog tuning portable I have most of the time. I like to be able to scan
the bands by hand with the dial and to see where I am. When I let the
digital do this automatically, it just doesn't seem the same. I just don't
derive the same pleasure from the digital tuning, and I have no plans to
ever be a part of digital radio.

Anyone else feel like that? Maybe it's because my first shortwave was in the
1960's.

I still find myself longing for the RadioShack DX-160 I had to sell
several years ago. No digital tuning, but the SOUND was GREAT! If I
want to zero in on a particular frequency, the digital tuning is a nice
thing to have, but if I just want to turn on the radio and listen just
for the sheer enjoyment of hearing the program, that old DX-160 was just
perfect.

Soon as I get some spare cash together, and get out from under some
bills, I think I'm gonna hit the TRW Swap Meet, do some surfing around
eBay, and see what kind of a bargain I can find. I have the perfect
place for it all picked out and ready....

--

-- //Steve//

Steve Silverwood, KB6OJS
Fountain Valley, CA
Email:
Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~kb6ojs_steve