 | | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
|
(...) You're right. Nor is there a year 1 or 5 or 30 either. The current calendar was made not too long ago as a device to easily keep track of all the meaningless crap we run around doing our whole lives. The actual birthdate of Christ is not (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
|
(...) of (...) first (...) Well, in order for there to be a "new millenium" to argue about I think that we should accept as a given the current (albeit quite probably inaccurate) dating system. In this system there is indeed a year 1 and 5(although (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
|
(...) I just thought of another fix, while still accepting the current dating system. All we have to do is redefine what a millenium is. here's the new definition that will make 2000 be the "new millenium" millenium- 1000 years, except for the first (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
|
(...) Poor Richard. He finally wins the Cool Lego Site of the Week, and it turns into a debate about what constitutes the "millennium". Go to his site and check it out: it is very cool. Heck, it's kewl! Bruce (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: millenium debate(look at Richard's site!)
|
|
(...) I do feel a little bad about that. I probably should have changed the subject sooner. Chris (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
