Subject:
|
Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Jan 2000 20:15:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
274 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Hoekwater writes:
> In lugnet.pirates, Christopher Lannan writes:
> >
> > Nitpick- there IS NO year zero. There are 10 years in a decade, so the last
> > year of the first decade was 10, the first year of the next decade was 11.
> > Taking this to today- there are 1000 years in a millenium, so the last year • of
> > the first millenium was 1000, and the last year of this one is 2000. The • first
> > year of the new millenium (and the 21st century) is 2001. Simple as counting
> > to ten. Millions of people saying that it's the new millenium doesn't make it
> > so.
> >
> > Chris
>
> 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 etched in 2000 year-old stone anywhere. The year of His birth
> can be disputed legitimately inside a 5-6 year timeframe at least. So the "New
> Millenium" may have started 3 years ago. Or maybe it started this morning. My
> point is that it's the people, not the math, that determine which year is the
> Big Deal. Remember all the people who thought the world would end just because
> 2000 is a biiiig rooound number? As a species, we change the rules constantly
> to conform to what we think is Best. We just happen to be wrong A LOT. But
> that doesn't mean we don't keep right on doing it. At least that's my take on
> the whole Y2K thing. Sorry about the rambling on and on and on and...
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
admittedly they weren't called the year one or five then). If we accept as a
given the current dating system then the year 2001 is the start of the new
millenium. If we don't accept it, then, well, I guess each of us can take our
pick.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
5 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
|
|
|
|
