24/7

[Peter Richardson]

Gee, can't we just say "sixty/sixty/twenty-four/seven/fifty-two" and be
sure we're not missing anything? It's a shame to neglect the seconds and
minutes, and these expressions are so much more time-efficient than saying
"constantly."

PR

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, LeMay, William wrote:

> A colleague of mine gets peeved when people extend the phrase to
> "twenty-four/seven/three-sixty-five", contending that logically it
> should be "twenty-four/seven/fifty-two."
>