h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

My day, 9*9*1999, was the easiest day to spot as it was also the busiest day for new users in H2G2 history with 35248 new researchers signing up that day.

I was sent here by a promotional email (I'd signed up for info on the upcoming (but greatly delayed) Starship Titanic game. Many others, I believe< were sent here by seeing H2G2 promoted/introduced on Tomorrow's World.

Your week may be borked, but not as much as Robert Bork's was when he was turned down for the Supreme Court.

Then again, The Swedish Chef has been saying "Bork bork bork" since 1975, which predates Bork's application for the Court.

Also, "borked" could be semi-dyslexic way to say "broken" in the sense of Quod erat demonstrandum. (What better way to show something is broken than to even have the word itself broken?)

I will take your advices and show up on Sunday for the paper reading. Also, do you suppose more people will show up as we near the 20th year after 1999? Is it that? I was here once a long time ago but after 1999.

I come by everyday and watch the tumbleweed drifting by.Eventually someone turns up..Conversations like this usually get folk involved.

I've checked & I started here 2001 - followed my son, who only stayed a short while.

I dropped in (and registered) in March, 2004 (U673784). Due to various circumstances, I have had to change accounts several times. But except for brief hospital stays when my heart failed - I do browse around here every day since.

The day I joined is on my space, although I wouldn't necessarily trust the person that put it there. They have been known to be So Often Distracted. Or wrong.

Given that it's two weeks since I last posted here (and I only went away to make a cup of ), I am no longer surprised that twenty years have passed since I first joined.

So, did lots of people reappear briefly on 9/9/19?

Nope!

Sept. 9 has already gone by? NOOOOOO!

to catch it again.

Wondering why I get to live in interesting times despite my stating many times that I don't care to do so.

I suspect any time must be interesting for someone.


Happy birthday for the statistical majority of people in the Western world having had birthdays in the past two days. (the dates with most births coïncide with nine months after Christmas)

talking of dates... only a couple more years before nighthoover's 20th birthday I think *thinks* hang on... Err... gosh that must make me nearly old too

Don't you mean anniversary?

ahh... yes

I can only find monthly birth data for 2006, when 4,265,555 babies were born, of which 374,7ll were born in September. August had the most births that year, as it had in 10 of the preceding 16 years.

Another way to look at it would be that 3,890,844 babies were *not* born in September that year. So how could 374,711 be a majority of 4,265,55?

http://www.livescience.com/32728-baby-month-is-almost-here-.html

I wasn't born in September that year. In fact, I wasn't born in September in any year. I also wasn't born yesterday.

That's all the data I'm willing to provide.

I wasn't born in September either. I was born in April, as were many others in my family. ts of Aries and Taurus people. August 1 to 22 is the time of Leos. I've known one or two Leos. The next sign, Virgo, dominates from late August through late September.

I don't think I know *any* Virgos, though I probably do without knowing that that's what they are.

A statistical majority is a majority, period.

Perhaps it was the most for Sep compared with other years?

Our parish magazine has a birthday section & it's interesting that some months have many more than others. As you have to pay for an entry, it's not representative of actual births per month though.

"A statistical majority is a majority, period"

Well... yeah. But pretty much the definition of "majority" in this context is ">50%". Rather than, as seems to have been implied "slightly more than the expected 8.33%".

I think I muddled up 2 posts. I see now, Caiman hasn't produced any data for his stated majority. One of those urban myths perhaps?