Trying to define “coin” … it’s not so easy

Hahah I was never into football but my friends were. Perhaps???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

In what year(s) did you do the eraser trading? Same as his career with the Colts?

 

This was around 2002-2005 or thereabouts.

 

He was a rookie in 2004.

 

Dang! It seems to fit. I don’t remember the time span exactly but it definitely encompassed 2004 for a large section of it.

After so many years, I’m sort of oddly pleased that the legend of Bob Sanders seems to have found its origin. Amazing!

 

Seems he didn't get the nickname until 2006. Still, too much to be just a coincidence.

 

What happens when I "coin" a phrase . . . . ?

Z

 

You actually use a manufacturing process similar to all others. Raw material is your knowledge of the root of the phrase. Then you engineer the phrase, word it properly. Then you publish the phrase. So you have coined it. Then you get a lot of negative feedback and have a product recall, something the Mint does not do.

 

Maybe you've discovered retrograde aging. Cal

 

All subject to MD, PMD, and worse yet, the PMS of the "listener" . . . . . .

Z

(Of course this whole subject gives me PTSD, not to be confused with PTD of course . . . . . .)

 

What was the country between 1783 and 1789? I seem to recall it was still the United States.

 

True. The current Constitution took effect then, but that does not define the country. Look at Chile who are rewriting their Constitution. I would say the US started with the Treaty of Paris where GB surrendered to the US. We used the Articles of Confederation before that. From 1776 to 1783 I would say we were a GB possession in rebellion.

As to definition of coin, I would think hard physical object issued under legal authority to circulate as money might be simplest.

 

I agree, so the Fugio cent is a US coin as well. One thing about the 1789 date for the starting of the current government. That was the date when the 9th state ratified the Constitution and the constitution had that provision included within it (go into effect once 3/4 of the states had ratified it) But that is a case of changing the rules retroactively, not really valid. The ratification of the Constitution was being carried out under the rules set forth in the Articles of Confederation, and THOSE rules required a UNANIMOUS agreement by all the states before it could be changed. Under those rules the Constitution could not go into effect until all thirteen states ratified it, and that didn't happen until 1791.

Permitting the Constitution to change it own rules for ratification could be seen as a bad precedent. Under the Constitution a new amendment requires 2/3 vote in the House and Senate and then ratification by 3/4 of the states. But what if an amendment was proposed that included in it language that only required a simple majority vote? Under the precedent set by the ratification of the Constitution itself, such an amendment could in theory change it's own requirements for ratification and amend the constitution with a simple majority vote. If you take the 1791 date when the last of the thirteen states ratified the constitution and the beginning of the current government, not 1789, that eliminates that little precedent problem because it satisfies the rules of the Articles and provides a proper transfer of power.

 

So Great Britain recognised the USA's independence in the Treaty of Paris ratified in 1783. I would say that is the de facto date the USA became a country in its own right. The rest was paperwork to set up the governance of the people.