 | | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks —Christopher Lannan
|
| | | (...) 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 —Christopher Lannan
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) 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!) —Christopher Lannan
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
