"notbob" > wrote in message
news:uH9Pc.195529$%_6.78193@attbi_s01...
> On 2004-08-01, K. Reece > wrote:
>
> > Except the current definition of a Blue Moon is a mistake.
>
> S&T giveth and S&T taketh away!
>
> But, it's pretty obvious why the "mistake" has become the accepted
> definition. Can you imagine trying to explain the real blue moon in a
> single sentence?
>
> "Well son, a blue moon is when you have more than 4 moons in a single
> quarter ...by the reformed Gregorian calander... and a fictitious sun
> ...during a tropical year ...and that's the 3rd moon ...and then only
> in accordance with ecclesiastical rules.... not to mention....."
>
> nb

Real blue moons don't have anything to do with a calendar or ecclesiastical
rules though. It's four moons between a solstice and an equinox or an
equinox and a solstice and the third will be the blue moon. You can use
whatever calendar you want or no calendar and there are still two solstices
and two equinoxes a year. But yeah, it's a little long of an explanation to
put on the back of a Trivial Pursuit card.

Kathy