Subject:
|
Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Jan 2000 20:21:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
290 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher Lannan writes:
> 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
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 one AD which was only 999 years
long.
This way, in the year 1000 a new millenium started, and in the year 2000 a new
one will start.
now all I have to do is call OED and Websters and get them to change the
definition of millenium.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
