Subject:
|
Re: When should the 2000 Catalogue Appear?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 2 Oct 1999 02:00:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
530 times
|
| |
|
|
> (We don't count years the same way we count birthdays; we count birthdays by
> the year we've completed, but years by the number of the year we're _in_. So
> we haven't completed the millennium until 2000 is done.)
>
>
> --
> Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
> Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
That's not the point. The first century didn't start on year 0, it started on
year 1 and ended on year 100, not 99. 101 was the first year (hence the 1) of
the next century.
Sorry to be so nitpicky. {:^)
Bill
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: When should the 2000 Catalogue Appear?
|
| (...) Actually, that's exactly what I said. The first year was (retroactively of course) numbered "1", meaning "In the first year after our reference point". The year before that is "-1", meaning "In the first year before our reference point." We (...) (25 years ago, 2-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: When should the 2000 Catalogue Appear?
|
| (...) Of course, the first LEGO catalog of the millennium won't be till next year. 2000 is the _last_ year of the century/millennium, all the zeros not withstanding. (We don't count years the same way we count birthdays; we count birthdays by the (...) (25 years ago, 21-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
