Talk:George Eastman/Archives/2014
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
early life
the first sentence of the early life section "Eastman took a large shit and was born" is hopefully incorrect.
The Eastman Plan
It seems most odd for the article not to mention the fact that, under Eastman's influence, the Kodak company adopted a different calendar from the outside world, the International Fixed Calendar.--5.150.92.174 (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Satanist?
Just curious, wasn't he a member of a satanic cult or church? I read the article looking to confirm what my dad told me once (I think he read about it on Time Magazine or People Magazine or something) but found nothing about his religious beliefs. Antonio El Bello Martin (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Eastman didn't talk much about his religion; he's widely considered to have been an atheist, or at most an apatheist. See, for instance this recollection from a personal friend forty years later: "He had no religion in the Christian sense." Powers T 14:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Assuming you didn't invent that rumor yourself, you probably should consult Snopes.com, a site specifically set up to confirm or debunk urban legends. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Snopes has nothing to say on the topic. Is there some reason you would disbelieve my source? Powers T 18:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Indent level for both responses is one. Ergo, my response was to User:AntonioMartin, not you. He can submit his rumor there rather than hijack Wikipedia to do so. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it is now. It wasn't when I posted, so I thought you were responding to me. Powers T 20:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Check the history yourself, you used one colon; I used one colon. Indent was one level then and remains so now. The fact that you don't habitually start your responses with a bullet is not a problem that I have anything to do with. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Both colons and bullets are considered levels of indentation. You had both a colon and a bullet; that's two levels of indentation. You added one to the level I was using. For the record Wikipedia:TALK#Layout suggests that colons be used in normal talk page discussions, leaving bullets for AfD-style discussions and polls. Powers T 23:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- "Both colons and bullets are considered levels of indentation." And yet, somehow bullets aren't mentioned in Help:Wiki markup#Indent text. And you've started using them yourself in this thread. And, most importantly, you couldn't use your critical thinking skills to realize that since you're not the rumor-monger, the reply wasn't addressed to you? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, because unlike you I try to adapt my indentation style to that of the people who came before me. We'd all be better off if we all used colons without bullets, but I do try to be accommodating. When you use an obviously confusing format and blame me for misunderstanding, though... well, I'll let this ridiculous discussion speak for itself. Powers T 15:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- "Both colons and bullets are considered levels of indentation." And yet, somehow bullets aren't mentioned in Help:Wiki markup#Indent text. And you've started using them yourself in this thread. And, most importantly, you couldn't use your critical thinking skills to realize that since you're not the rumor-monger, the reply wasn't addressed to you? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Check the history yourself, you used one colon; I used one colon. Indent was one level then and remains so now. The fact that you don't habitually start your responses with a bullet is not a problem that I have anything to do with. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Indent level for both responses is one. Ergo, my response was to User:AntonioMartin, not you. He can submit his rumor there rather than hijack Wikipedia to do so. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- In the absence of any forthcoming evidence to support the 'Satanist' hypothesis, may I postulate that this is a mischievous rumour likely originating from mainstream reaction against the Eastman Plan or International Fixed Calendar, with its thirteens, its Friday the thirteenths, and its plucky attempt to surpass received religious wisdom via calendar rationalisation?--5.150.92.174 (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Also, the Eastman Kodak calendar policy must have given some (ex-)employees (e.g, in PR) the devil of a job to work with/around.--83.151.230.52 (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)