Author: Charles Unruh
Date: 18:41:29 12/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 1999 at 21:21:29, Keith Ian Price wrote: >On December 24, 1999 at 15:52:48, Albert Silver wrote: > >>On December 24, 1999 at 12:00:44, Keith Ian Price wrote: >> >>>On December 24, 1999 at 10:38:33, Albert Silver wrote: >>> >>>>On December 24, 1999 at 10:09:34, Charles Unruh wrote: >>>> >>>>>The millenium does not start till 2001!! 2000 is last year of this millenium. >>>>> >>>>>2000 is just the cap, 2001 is the beggining man i want to blow up the world i'm >>>>>tired of people refusing to acknowledge the obvious ughhh! Merry X-mas >>>>>>MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR! >>>> >>>>Only if the calendar started with a 1. If on the other hand Year 1 represented >>>>the first year to pass (like a baby's first birthday), 2000 is indeed the >>>>beginning of the second millenium. The debate is in fact all based on this. I >>>>for one believe that Year 1 was the first year to pass, therefore the year 2000 >>>>is the beginning of the third millenium after Christ. >>>> >>>> Albert Silver >>> >>>I must admit I am rather surprised at this statement, Albert. You are normally >>>quite logical in your premises. Of course the calendar started with 1. People >>>didn't have computers back then, so starting with 0 didn't make sense to them. >>>And equally, of course year 1 represented the first year to pass (like a baby's >>>first birthday), so, of course the millenium starts with 2001. If year 1 was the >>>first year to pass in the 1st millenium, year 2001 will be the first year to >>>pass in the third millenium. >> >>I thought we were celebrating the beginning of the millenium which after >>midnight. After midnight will commence the first second, first minute, and then >>the first hour of the third millenium. Do we really need to wait a whole year >>into the millenium to celebrate its commencement? >>Does a baby's life start when they celebrate their first birthday? Or is it when >>they are born? > >Well, A.D. stands for Anno Domino (Year of the Lord), and the year did start >when he was born and it was the first year (1) not the zeroth year. If you add >2000 to 1 you get 2001. Perhaps the millenium could start on January 1, 2000 >P.D. (Post Domino), where the first year after the Lord's birth would be 1 P.D., >but then B.C. would become A.D., and people would really get confused! > >>Well, the argument about the calendar starting at zero or one due to the Romans >>seems a bit strange, particularly as I seriously doubt the Romans decided to >>create a new calendar based on the man they had just finished crucifying. > >It wasn't the Romans. It was a monk several centuries later. And his >calculations were most likely inaccurate, so that Christ was actually born in 4 >B.C., which would mean that we all missed the big party in 1997. But since the >big party is really about a new millenium and not a particular time after >Christ's birth, we should stick to the calendar we have and keep it 2001. >Besides, the party won't be as expensive, or crowded, and you will be less >likely to get blown up. > >>> The New York Times editorial staff is having a >>>battle over this right now. Their headline on January 1, 1901 was "Welcome to >>>The 20th Century". Some of the editors want to have a similar "Welcome to the >>>New Millenium" headline on January 1, 2000. But the others ask how will they >>>explain the 99-year century? >> >>They can say their 99 year-old peers didn't know what they were talking about. > >Year-old peers seldom do, even if there are 99 of them. ;-) > > >kp Tell em like it is that's the old pepper boy, that's the old pepper!
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.