Debate : 8427


Off-Topic / Debate / 8427	8426 \| 8428

Subject:	Re: there ain't no such thing as "year zero"...
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Tue, 2 Jan 2001 15:59:04 GMT
Viewed:	735 times

Franklin W. Cain wrote: > There was *not* a "year zero". The year after "1 BC" was the year "AD 1". You're missing my point. There wasn't a year 1 AD either. There is a year which we now call 1 AD. My point is that the relevance of when the bleep the calendar started is about zero. Therefore I find more relevance in the last digits turning to zeros. I used to take the anal view that since there isn't a year 0, that the new millenium starts in 2001, but as I saw more and more discussion, I came to feel that it just plain makes more sense to think of 2000/01/01 as the start of the new millenium. -- Frank Filz ----------------------------- Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please) Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com

Message has 1 Reply:

		Re: No "year zero", but if there was, we STILL just started new millenia!
(...) If that's the case, my computer that reads 2001 is wrong. If there was no year 1, then how is there a year 2001? Any numbering system for years starts at an arbitrary date - you are correct that there wasn't a year 1 in the sense that the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: First (was Re: Ultimate castle theme..)
(...) Others would point out that 2001/01/01 00:00:01 GMT is not the start of the new millenium even if you subscribe to the incorrect notion (1) that 2001 is the start of the new millenium, not 2000. GMT is 12 hours behind the international date (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

57 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

Custom Search