← Back to context Comment by guy234 3 months ago The original text was from 1978 according to other sources 3 comments guy234 Reply bambax 3 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 3 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 3 months ago Right, it seemed earlier.
bambax 3 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 3 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 3 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.