 | | Welcome to the Ohs —Rick Kujawa
|
| | | Happy New Year everyone. That was the end of the 90's and now its the beginning of the 0's or the oh ohs. Now its double 0h zero. (24 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Welcome to the Ohs —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | (...) <nitpick mode on> The Year 2000 is the last year of the '90s (not 90's.) There was no year 0000 The first year was 0001. So 0001 to 0010 is the first decade A.D. Logically the last decade of the 20th century is 1991 to 2000. Just out of (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Welcome to the Ohs —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | Mike Petrucelli wrote in message ... (...) 0000 (...) Logically (...) curiosity, do (...) While I can agree with the thought that we have not yet entered the new millenium, we have definitely left the '90s. Of course on another angle, we almost (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Welcome to the Ohs —Mark Tarrabain
|
| | | | | | | (...) Actually, if a particular thrice appearing planetary conjunction were to be interpreted as the star of bethlehem (not an unreasonable speculation, using astrological interpretation), and its first appearance did indeed happen in synch with (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Welcome to the Ohs —Paul Davidson
|
| | | | | | | why not make life easier and just state that (...) and (...) Because it's not true. :) It's true that the calendar is somewhat based on arbitrary convention (since Christ was born around 5 BC), but one must stick with convention if it's to be of any (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Welcome to the Ohs —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | Paul Davidson wrote in message ... (...) stick (...) Well, if we were to stick to convention, does anyone have any solid historical evidence of whether people living around the end of the first millennium considered 1000 or 1001 to be the first (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Welcome to the Ohs —John DiRienzo
|
| | | | | | | | | Frank Filz wrote in message ... (...) My grandmother born in 1899 probably would have the answer re 1900/01, but she just passed away this past year. The oldest living person (according to the Guinness Book) born in 1880 would know it, too, but she (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Welcome to the Ohs —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Yes to the latter. The Grand Rapids Press dug into its own archives and found pretty convincing stories/editorial copy to show that people then, or at least the writers of the stories and planners of parties, considered 1901 as the start of (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Welcome to the Ohs —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | | | (...) A paraphrase from a letter in an upscale monthly magazine, december 1799: "Will you guys please just all shut up, the century isn't over for another year!"[1]. Same argument ensues, except that nowadays more people take part due to more (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Welcome to the Naughties (was Re: Welcome to the Ohs —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | I prefer the "naughts" or "naughties" to the "Ohs". On the whole topic, I found it interesting that last century, public opinion was pretty solid on the start being 1901 (the Grand Rapids MI Press published an excerpt from the Jan 1 1900 and Jan 1 (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Welcome to the Naughties (was Re: Welcome to the Ohs —Rick Kujawa
|
| | | | | | | Would it technically be the naughtSies, naught plural, (sounds too tyranical). How about "the autsies" (like double aut 00) (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Welcome to the Auties (was Re: Welcome to the Naughties (was Re: Welcome to the Ohs)) —Rick Kujawa
|
| | | | | | | | (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Welcome to the Naughties (was Re: Welcome to the Ohs —John DiRienzo
|
| | | | | | I did glean enough from the old timers to know that last time around they were called the aughts. -- Have fun! John The Legos you've been dreaming of... (URL) weird Lego site: (URL) is yet another tool in the dumbing-down of America by a power (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Welcome to the Aughtsies was Naughties (was Re: Welcome to the Ohs —Rick Kujawa
|
| | | | | | (...) So I guess they will be called the aughtsies. (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Welcome to the Ohs —Mark Tarrabain
|
| | | | | (followups redirected to lugnet.off.topic) (...) (nitpick mode on again.... :) Yes, there was no year 0. Yes, the 21st century does not begin until January 1, 2001. Howeever.... Where in the world did you get the idea that 2000 would be *ANY* part (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Welcome to the Ohs —Paul Davidson
|
| | | | | | (...) Agreed...the '90s are considered to be dates between '90 and '99, not necessarily the 199th decade A.D. (which goes from '91 to '00). Paul Davidson (24 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Welcome to the Ohs —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | | | (...) See I equate the '90s with the 200th decade. (the 199th decade was the '80s) Every history book I have seen follows this concept of dates. 2001 is the begining of the 3rd millenium, the 21st centruy and the 201st decade. (24 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Welcome to the Ohs —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | (...) Doubtful, considering the calendar adjustment of 13 (14?) days in the 1700s somewhere ;-) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Welcome to the Ohs —Gary R. Istok
|
| | | | | | (...) That adjustment from Julian to Gregorian format is also a complicated issue. It happened in Western Europe in 1582, but not the UK until 1752, and not Russia until 1917. So there was a period where when you crossed the English Channel, you (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Welcome to the Ohs —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | | | (...) clock in (...) right (...) It (...) until (...) crossed (...) of (...) (not (...) I forgot to take that whole calander switch mess into account. Still the Idea of the clock counting to the year 2000 and beyond amuses me to no end. -Lord (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Welcome to the Ohs —Gene C. Weissinger
|
| | | | You are all overlooking the 'Americanization' of everything...... We will gladly take anything throw it on TV, rewrite your words to fit our purpose - and poof - we call it 'media'. Thus, a new millenium is created when they have to write a (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
