 | | Re: Welcome to the Ohs —Paul Davidson
|
| | | 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 —Frank Filz
|
| | | | 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: Welcome to the Ohs —John DiRienzo
|
| | | | | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Welcome to the Ohs —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Welcome to the Ohs —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
