Comment by guy234 10 months ago The original text was from 1978 according to other sources 3 comments guy234 Reply bambax 10 months ago Ah, thanks. Yes it couldn't have been 2010 because he died in 2002. But the date this was written is important, otherwise his references to "the last decade" don't mean anything! yaris 10 months ago Many would say that "the last decade" (with the surrounding context) is timeless, or at least that it is still relevant today. Animats 10 months ago Right, it seemed earlier.
bambax 10 months ago Ah, thanks. Yes it couldn't have been 2010 because he died in 2002. But the date this was written is important, otherwise his references to "the last decade" don't mean anything! yaris 10 months ago Many would say that "the last decade" (with the surrounding context) is timeless, or at least that it is still relevant today.
yaris 10 months ago Many would say that "the last decade" (with the surrounding context) is timeless, or at least that it is still relevant today.
Ah, thanks. Yes it couldn't have been 2010 because he died in 2002. But the date this was written is important, otherwise his references to "the last decade" don't mean anything!
Many would say that "the last decade" (with the surrounding context) is timeless, or at least that it is still relevant today.
Right, it seemed earlier.