 | | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
| On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Dave Schuler (<Fnrwno.43A@lugnet.com>) wrote at 18:57:24 (...) Well, I've bitten my tongue so far, but here goes: The current system for numbering years was only invented some time in the fifth or sixth century, IIRC. Therefore, (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
| (...) See: (URL) my rebuttal of the "well the dating system is wrong, arbitrary, etc" idea. (...) No, you can't. If we take as a given that we are accepting the current dating system, and if we take as a given the currently accepted definition of a (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
| (...) I don't think that's at issue. The thing is, we don't count what year we've completed, we count what year we're IN. (AD = "in the year of our Lord".) So we're currently IN the 2000th year; therefore, we've not finished the current millennium (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
| (...) Technically, there was, even if it was only defined 525 years later (I think the system was generated in 526). Y'see, when Dionysus Exuugus [sp, it's late and my Latin sucks] generated the "compiled, authoritative" Christian annular calendar, (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
| (...) Naturally enough, since the concept of zero wasn't accepted in western thought until about five centuries later. (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
| (...) _And_ the one before that, and presumably before that as well, except that the newspaper/magazine hadn't been invented yet so we have no documentation. Jasper (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| |
