LEGO SYSTEM Castle : 7229


Castle / 7229

Re: Ultimate castle theme.. —Mark Sandlin

(...) I'd sure like to see a dragon that was bigger than 2 minifigs tall. Maybe it could come in its own set or something. my 2 copper pieces ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 1-Jan-01, to lugnet.castle)

Re: Ultimate castle theme.. —Aaron West

(...) I got thinking about this... Wouldn't it be real nice if they did do a new style dragon that was larger and in different colors? How about one like a Chinese dragon? A long serpentine style body that has jointed sections in the middle so that (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jan-01, to lugnet.castle)

First (was Re: Ultimate castle theme..) —Steve Chapple

(...) Congratulations Mark on being the first post of the new millennium. :-) (Of course some would argue for the odometer turn over a year ago.) SRC (24 years ago, 1-Jan-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: First (was Re: Ultimate castle theme..) —Mark Sandlin

(...) Tee Hee. Yay Me! ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: First (was Re: Ultimate castle theme..) —Frank Filz

(...) Others would point out that 2001/01/01 00:00:01 GMT is not the start of the new millenium even if you subscribe to the incorrect notion (1) that 2001 is the start of the new millenium, not 2000. GMT is 12 hours behind the international date (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

When did the 3rd millennium start? —Todd Lehman

(...) But if you're talking about the 9th decade of the 20th century, aren't you referring to 1981/01/01 to 1990/12/31? --Todd (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: When did the 3rd millennium start? —Frank Filz

(...) in (...) 1989/12/31 (...) Well, my point would be that the 20th century most sensibly (to me) starts 1900/01/01 so the 9th decade would still start at 1980/01/01. But really its all pretty irrelevant. The 20th century isn't the 20th century of (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: When did the 3rd millennium start? —Matthew Miller

(...) That's when the *1900s* start -- just as the 80s start at 1980. (...) Sure. But for whatever reason, we do say that we are currently in the year 2001. Note that it doesn't work like birthdays, which count the number of years *completed*. (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: When did the 3rd millennium start? —Frank Filz

(...) You're totally ignoring my point. My point is that the relevancy of how we call things is so little, that what makes the most sense to me is to say that decades start when the last digit of the year turns 0, centuries start when the last two (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: When did the 3rd millennium start? —Erik Olson

(...) You act as if what people did for all the centuries when our system WAS in use do not matter. In 1901 this was not an issue; they treated just as people did in 1801, and 1701. It is only our century that decided not to. (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: When did the 3rd millennium start? —Matthew Miller

(...) Doesn't matter. It's the *2001st* year since we started counting. Not 2000th: I think that's what you're missing. *Last* year was the 2000th year; that's why it was called "2000". (...) Well, as I said in my post, you are *in* your 38th year. (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: When did the 3rd millennium start? —Frank Filz

(...) No we don't need to renumber all the previous years. We just need to give the year 1 BC two names. Or we can be non-anal about it and accept that to the average person, it makes more sense that the millenium starts in 2000 not 2001. On the (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: When did the 3rd millennium start? —Jeff Johnston

(...) Bah, it's all irrelevant. The universe was created last Tuesday, already in its present form. J (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

there ain't no such thing as "year zero"... —Franklin W. Cain

Frank, There was *not* a "year zero". The year after "1 BC" was the year "AD 1". The Christian Calendar (and that *is* what it is, whether or not people want to accept it as such) is *not* a number line; IT DOESN'T HAVE A "ZERO"! Thus, the FIRST (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: there ain't no such thing as "year zero"... —Frank Filz

(...) You're missing my point. There wasn't a year 1 AD either. There is a year which we now call 1 AD. My point is that the relevance of when the bleep the calendar started is about zero. Therefore I find more relevance in the last digits turning (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: No "year zero", but if there was, we STILL just started new millenia! —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) If that's the case, my computer that reads 2001 is wrong. If there was no year 1, then how is there a year 2001? Any numbering system for years starts at an arbitrary date - you are correct that there wasn't a year 1 in the sense that the (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: there ain't no such thing as "year zero"... —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(*Sound of dead horse being savagely beaten*) That's all right, it deserves it. Keeps our minds off of more important but far more depressing matters [1]. (...) I'm in full agreement with Franklin, but my evidence is in the term "Anno Domini" (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3rd millennium —Steve Chapple

(...) I figured if it was to be the first LUGNet post that Todd's computer's clock would have to be the reference standard for our little LEGO world. If it ceases to function our world ceases to exist. :-) (...) Interesting. I agree it's rather (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: First (was Re: Ultimate castle theme..) —Tobbe Arnesson

When did the first brick pop out of LEGOs molds? I'll dub that year zero my-self. (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.fun)