Pat, how did the Digest manage to misplace a volume somewhere along the way? If the practice ideally is to always start a new volume on January 1 of a new year, then this year's volume should be number 26, not 25. I.e.:
Volume 1: August 11, 1981 through December 31, 1981 (a partial year volume) Volume 2: January 1, 1982 through December 31, 1982 ... Volume 25: January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 Volume 26: January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006
But I see from the Telecom Digest Archives that the system seemed to break down for a while between 2001 and 2003:[DIR] 1999.volume.19/ (this one is numbered as expected) [DIR] 2000.volume.20/ (so is this one) [DIR] 2001.volume.20/ (wait, it's a new year but we're still in Vol. 20!) [DIR] 2002.volume.20/ (yet another new year, but still Vol. 20!) [DIR] 2002.volume.21/ (a second volume for 2002) [DIR] 2002.volume.22/ (a THIRD volume for 2002!) [DIR] 2003.volume.22/ (Vol. 22 also spans more than one year) [DIR] 2004.volume.23/ (things have stabilized to one volume per year again)
I assume that this numbering confusion took place during your absence from the Digest that was caused by your stroke and ensuing convalescence. We're glad we managed to get you back, and happy birthday to the Digest!
Bob Goudreau Cary, NC[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Figure it this way: 1981 from 2006 leaves 25 does it not? Originally August 1981 through December 1981 a partial volume. Volume 2 started in January 1982.
During all of year 2001 I was in convelesance which was most of volume20 and all of volume 21. I skipped volume 21 on paper for that reason, if you read the archives at the end of vol 20 I stuck a single issue in there referred to as vol 21, and went on to vol 22. At some point in there I thought about using the actual anniversary date to change volume numbers and went to volume 23 from 22. I think that is how the mix up happened. In any event, August 11 1981 through August 11, 2006 equals 25. I doubt I am going to do anything about the anniversary anyway. Not that many people care either way, but thanks for your kind thoughts.