Difference between revisions of "Talk:Accounting"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(I still think Centuries is more appropriate.)
m (Reverted edits by Trajsmith (Talk); changed back to last version by Human)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Hi trajsmith, nice job of what you call "minor beefing up".  The article is much, much better now.  One tiny quibble - I changed the double entry thing back to "millennia", as it was invented by the Babylonians. [[User:Human|Human]] 14:55, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
 
Hi trajsmith, nice job of what you call "minor beefing up".  The article is much, much better now.  One tiny quibble - I changed the double entry thing back to "millennia", as it was invented by the Babylonians. [[User:Human|Human]] 14:55, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
−
 
−
 
−
Thanks for the compliment.  I think you should revert to centuries.  while I am familar with Babylonian story (I am not sure I believe, but that is not the point), the first text on the subject was by an Italian monk around the time of da Vinci (Pacioli?) although there is some evidence of earlier use by Florentine merchants.  So, for widespread use, I think centuries is more valid than millenia.
 

Revision as of 16:08, July 17, 2007

Hi trajsmith, nice job of what you call "minor beefing up". The article is much, much better now. One tiny quibble - I changed the double entry thing back to "millennia", as it was invented by the Babylonians. Human 14:55, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Accounting&oldid=237819"