Gaertk at aol.com writes: > In a message dated Mon, 17 Jun 2002 3:33:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b at dd-b.net> writes: > > But it's gotta be the 309th year of the reign of the > > current Emperor (who I think is actually an Empress, but > > whatever; see previous message). > > > > So the rest would have to be positions in cycles and > > super-cycles, I guess? What order do they go in? Since > > 309 is first, does that mean that the first 2 is the > > position in the basic cycle, being the next-smallest unit? > > ... since I *did* spend the time yesterday doing the math > to fix the mistakes in the dates, I get to feel all smug > and superiour when reading this. :) > (hint: Paarfi is consistently omitting things, and > Dragaerans apparantly haven't invented the zero yet) Well, that "309" thing looks like a zero to me; so I'm not sure what you mean. I wouldn't expect them to talk about the "zeroth" cycle, or anything. I shall look forward to your big post. (I divided mine up in some slight hope of keeping the threads separate, to make it easier to follow just one track of conversation if people wanted.) Let's see; Tortalik is a phoenix emperor, and the preceding rule was an Athyra (from the talk of wizards of the guard), which is correct preceding a phoenix. But the Phoenix reign should be step 0, 1, or 17 or 18 in the cycle (depending on how they choose to number it), and none of those numbers appear at either end of the date (which house in the cycle was up couldn't be in the middle, could it?). -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net / New TMDA anti-spam in test John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/ New Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info