 | | Re: When should the 2000 Catalogue Appear? —Bill Farkas
| | | | (...) 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 (25 years ago, 2-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: When should the 2000 Catalogue Appear? —Matthew Miller
| | | | | (...) 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)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: When should the 2000 Catalogue Appear? —Matthew Miller
| | | | | (...) Further discussion of this topic belongs in .off-topic.geek, I think. Let's take it there if you want to continue. :) (25 years ago, 2-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | | |
