Subject:
|
Re: new millenium bugs me
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Nov 1999 15:15:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
739 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Frank Filz writes:
> Mark Sullivan wrote:
> > (And btw, if you want to follow the screwy
> > A.D. calendar numbering system further, then all you 30 year olds out there
> > will be glad to hear that you are still in your twenties...)
>
> Actually not. Age really does start at 0. You aren't 1 until you have
> been out of your mother's womb (or the petri dish for those reading this
> post in the far distant future) for 365 or so days.
>
> --
> Frank Filz
There's a difference between being "in your first year" and being "one year
old". If you are 30 years old, then that means you have completed 30 years of
life, and are in the midst of your 31st year, so the AD counting thing doesn't
hold true. When you are thirty you are actually in your thirties- we're
counting birthdays not including the first one (birth). With AD dates we're
counting the year we are actually in the midst of, including the first one.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: new millenium bugs me
|
| (...) Actually not. Age really does start at 0. You aren't 1 until you have been out of your mother's womb (or the petri dish for those reading this post in the far distant future) for 365 or so days. (25 years ago, 30-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
34 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
|
|
|
|
