Subject:
|
Re: Welcome to the Ohs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 1 Jan 2000 21:45:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
564 times
|
| |
|
|
why not make life easier and just state that
> new decades start on an xxx0 year, new centuries start on an xx00 year, • and
> new millenia start on an x000 year.
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 use.
BTW, millennium and millennia have two N's ... must be the most misspelled
word of the millennium (since people haven't had to spell it for a 1000
years). I certainly hope you don't spell annal with one N too. ;)
Paul Davidson
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
