 | | Re: Welcome to the Ohs
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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)
|
| |
| | Welcome to the Naughties (was Re: Welcome to the Ohs
|
|
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 Ohs
|
|
(...) 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 Naughties (was Re: Welcome to the Ohs
|
|
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))
|
|
(...) (24 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Welcome to the Naughties (was Re: Welcome to the Ohs
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
