 | | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
You seem to know a lot about that which is unknowable;-) -John (...) (25 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 (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Welcome to the Ohs
|
|
(...) 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 (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Well, at least an all encompassing definition of good. It is not something that can be comprehended in its entirety-- it is a continuous learning process. (...) Sorry if some things aren't easily understood-- that's just the way it is, baby. (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
