Author: Keith Ian Price
Date: 14:55:51 12/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 25, 1999 at 09:28:05, Albert Silver wrote: >On December 24, 1999 at 21:21:29, Keith Ian Price wrote: > >>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. > >Your reply here implies it is certain and not debatable. Is it certain that we >are following this monk's calendar to this day and that the first day on it was >January 1st, 1 AD? If it is I will bow out gracefully, otherwise I'll stick to >my guns (which seem more logical BTW). Well, the switch from the Julian to the Gregorian Calendar dropped 11 days in September of 1752 (In England--other countries switched at other times), but otherwise it is the same calendar. >>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. > >Good. I'd read this somewhere and thought it completely ludicrous. Yes, it would be almost as ludicrous as something I read about Herod dying in 4 B.C., and this was proven by the coins minted at the time. They must have said 4 B.C. right on them! How prophetic! >> 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 millennium 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 > >Tell me about it. > >> , 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. ;-) > >:-)))) I don't know, the 99 dwarves may simply out-vote you, you know. The gnomes at the New York Times do like to rewrite history, even as it happens. > Albert Silver > kp
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.